FFXIII no longer PS3 exclusive.

[Nev]

http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html

VGCats hooked up the info. I wonder if this may be remembered as the beginning of the end for the PS3.

[Flip]

Thank the lord i havent bought one yet...

[Julius Seeker]

Makes perfect sense considering the PS3 isn't exactly selling well at all, and games like this one are heavy budget and need to sell millions.

I am still not confident in the development team at this point in time though. A good test for them will be FF12-2

[Zeus]

None of the big sites have picked up on this yet. I'm gonna wait for that. If this were true, they'd update their website at 4 am on a Saturday to break news like this.

[Don]

I can't imagine the Wii have the graphical power to handle a game like FF13 since Square usually uses mega firepower for all their games and I don't know how XBox 360 stacks power-wise. Maybe they're getting Final Fantasy 13 (whatever) kind of like how there are 6 or so games with FF7 in it?

[Zeus]

Wii could only handle an offshoot story of FF13. It flat out couldn't do it

[Julius Seeker]

Actually, considering the state of Xbox 360 and PS3 in Japan, why wouldn't they do a PS2 and/or Wii build of FF13?

[Zeus]

Actually, considering the state of Xbox 360 and PS3 in Japan, why wouldn't they do a PS2 and/or Wii build of FF13?

Graphics, a very important part of the series. You don't downgrade on the normal game, you'd do an offshoot like with the DS

[Nev]

I'd be *very* surprised if they did FFXIII for anything other than a system capable of fully handling the graphics. That means 360 or Ps3.

[Julius Seeker]

Graphics, a very important part of the series. You don't downgrade on the normal game, you'd do an offshoot like with the DS

Yes graphics are an important part of the series, but that is not relevant, money is MUCH moe important to the company. This is why we are seeing DS and GBA versions of FF1-6 as opposed to PS3 versions. There are plenty of games that have lower-graphical builds to them where graphics are even more important, such as Call of Duty 3.

You are probably right though, most likely they would make new volumes, not necessarilly "offshoots" since FF13 is itself a series of games rather than a single game.

[Oracle]

Didn't Square Enix move Dragon Quest to the DS? I don't see why they wouldn't with FFXIII.

[Tessian]

This is why we are seeing DS and GBA versions of FF1-6 as opposed to PS3 versions. There are plenty of games that have lower-graphical builds to them where graphics are even more important, such as Call of Duty 3.

You can't compare down-grading a game for a platform to upgrading it to one! FF1-6 were on platforms that are less powerful than DS and GBA, which is why a port was so nice. Porting old FF games to PS3 would be a waste unless they rehauled the entire game to make use of the system's power.

and as for CoD3...have you noticed there haven't been many other games trying to downgrade for Wii? CoD3 did poorly on Wii to begin with-- the graphics were noticably worse on it and controls were clunky and not too well thought out.

Wii's uniqueness is a curse and a blessing. Means that you can't easily port games from 360/PS3 to it because you have to not only downgrade graphics but revamp controls for something they weren't meant to be used for (it's VERY difficult to have a game that is easily and well played with either a Wiimote or a controller)

[Oracle]

Wii will NOT ever be a good "port" console. Publishers are going to have to make Wii exclusives to make money off of the system.

[Tessian]

Wii will NOT ever be a good "port" console. Publishers are going to have to make Wii exclusives to make money off of the system.

Exactly-- you make a game to take advantage of the Wii's features. You don't make a game based on normal console and then try to make it work on a Wii.

[Eric]

Didn't Square Enix move Dragon Quest to the DS? I don't see why they wouldn't with FFXIII.

Dragon Quest is a game that sells on name recognition alone. They sell it on the system with the largest userbase. The DS by far has the most accessable and largest userbase in Japan. Graphics and gameplay for that series have never been their largest selling points.

FFXIII sells on graphics, period, it wants to draw in people who want an epic experience like something out of a movie, with epic monsters, and epic blah blah blah.

[Lox]

Yeah, the FF games have always been as much about pushing the graphical limits of a system as they are about the story and new battle style. So I can't see FFXIII being ported to the Wii. I am really really hoping it gets ported to the 360 then.

[Julius Seeker]

This is why we are seeing DS and GBA versions of FF1-6 as opposed to PS3 versions. There are plenty of games that have lower-graphical builds to them where graphics are even more important, such as Call of Duty 3.

You can't compare down-grading a game for a platform to upgrading it to one! FF1-6 were on platforms that are less powerful than DS and GBA, which is why a port was so nice. Porting old FF games to PS3 would be a waste unless they rehauled the entire game to make use of the system's power.

and as for CoD3...have you noticed there haven't been many other games trying to downgrade for Wii? CoD3 did poorly on Wii to begin with-- the graphics were noticably worse on it and controls were clunky and not too well thought out.

Irrelevant, you took only a portion of a response completely out of context. CoD3 was just a recent example of a game which had a lower-graphical end build that was recently released to counter a statement that said this sort of thing isn't done. Also, the main reason why there aren't many games downgraded for the Wii yet is because the system came out only a few months ago.

Wii will NOT ever be a good "port" console. Publishers are going to have to make Wii exclusives to make money off of the system.

Exactly-- you make a game to take advantage of the Wii's features. You don't make a game based on normal console and then try to make it work on a Wii.

I am not sure how this is exactly relevant to the topic, but I will respond anyway.

Since we are talking about sales: EA and Ubisoft have both been quite successful in Wiifying their games. Ubisoft has had a lot of issues with the publishing sector rushing the development sector. There were a lot of issues, and a lot of things had to be simplified; but millions of software units were still sold to the public between all of these games.

For the statement that companies are not able to make a profit from making Wii versions of games, this is totally incorrect. Wii sales boosted Ubisoft's profit margin by 78% over last year with multiple Wii ports; total sales were up 24%. The new Rayman game being yet another example of a game which has both a high end graphical build (Xbox 360, PS3 version was canned) and a lower graphical build among the Ubisoft releases.




This all said, there is actually a Mobile version of the game, so they are in fact working on lower end builds. I won't be surprised at all if there are PS2, DS, and Wii volumes of FF13. I really have no idea at this point, but I don't see how an Xbox 360 port would be more likely than lower end builds for systems that the game will sell on. If it is ported to Xbox 360, from what I have gathered, Xbox 360 gamers hate Square and Japanese games in general.

[Julius Seeker]

Alright, update from Squre-Enix's minister of propaganda, Hashimoto "With Fabula Nova Crystallis FFXIII, we've thought about an expansive world setting from the start. Under the idea of wanting everyone to be sucked into the world for 10 years, we're preparing a number of categories."

This statement will give some indication of perhaps what they mean by FF13 coming to multiple cosoles. Maybe there is no port of the PS3 version in particular, but that it is not the full story, and that other volumes will be coming to other consoles. Though the story may be retold for other consoles, similar to how Lunar and Xenosaga have been done in the past.

Hashimoto also says on TGSand the upcoming Square-Enix party event in May: "Look forward to the events as Nintendo fans, or, even better, as Square Enix fans."

[Zeus]

Wii will NOT ever be a good "port" console. Publishers are going to have to make Wii exclusives to make money off of the system.

Exactly-- you make a game to take advantage of the Wii's features. You don't make a game based on normal console and then try to make it work on a Wii.

That's why it's a great companion system. You can get your traditional stuff on 360/PS3 and new stuff on the Wii. As a gamer, it's best to get a Wii with one of the other two, the 360 being the obvious choice.

[Oracle]

This is why we are seeing DS and GBA versions of FF1-6 as opposed to PS3 versions. There are plenty of games that have lower-graphical builds to them where graphics are even more important, such as Call of Duty 3.

You can't compare down-grading a game for a platform to upgrading it to one! FF1-6 were on platforms that are less powerful than DS and GBA, which is why a port was so nice. Porting old FF games to PS3 would be a waste unless they rehauled the entire game to make use of the system's power.

and as for CoD3...have you noticed there haven't been many other games trying to downgrade for Wii? CoD3 did poorly on Wii to begin with-- the graphics were noticably worse on it and controls were clunky and not too well thought out.

Irrelevant, you took only a portion of a response completely out of context. CoD3 was just a recent example of a game which had a lower-graphical end build that was recently released to counter a statement that said this sort of thing isn't done. Also, the main reason why there aren't many games downgraded for the Wii yet is because the system came out only a few months ago.

Wii will NOT ever be a good "port" console. Publishers are going to have to make Wii exclusives to make money off of the system.

Exactly-- you make a game to take advantage of the Wii's features. You don't make a game based on normal console and then try to make it work on a Wii.

I am not sure how this is exactly relevant to the topic, but I will respond anyway.

Since we are talking about sales: EA and Ubisoft have both been quite successful in Wiifying their games. Ubisoft has had a lot of issues with the publishing sector rushing the development sector. There were a lot of issues, and a lot of things had to be simplified; but millions of software units were still sold to the public between all of these games.

For the statement that companies are not able to make a profit from making Wii versions of games, this is totally incorrect. Wii sales boosted Ubisoft's profit margin by 78% over last year with multiple Wii ports; total sales were up 24%. The new Rayman game being yet another example of a game which has both a high end graphical build (Xbox 360, PS3 version was canned) and a lower graphical build among the Ubisoft releases.




This all said, there is actually a Mobile version of the game, so they are in fact working on lower end builds. I won't be surprised at all if there are PS2, DS, and Wii volumes of FF13. I really have no idea at this point, but I don't see how an Xbox 360 port would be more likely than lower end builds for systems that the game will sell on. If it is ported to Xbox 360, from what I have gathered, Xbox 360 gamers hate Square and Japanese games in general.

I wish you would post your sources when you give us figures. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these figures and draw my own conclusions.

Anyway, Rayman was a launch title in a very VERY slim library at launch (and if you count virtual console games as launch titles I punch you in the god damned throat ). while it may have made money for Ubisoft and is considered a "port", it is a unique example.

Honestly, 98% of the ports for the Wii (and this IS a number I'm pulling out of my ass to exaggerate my claims) are going to be half-assed "oh crap we need to get into the Wii market let's make a port for SUPERFIGHTERFLYINGWHATEVER game X to the Wii" games, which will most likely make little to no money.

That's the best case. Worst case is that people will gobble the shit up because of the Wii's smallish library of good games and the console will get a bad rep for having mostly junk on it, which will in turn hurt the sales of future Wii consoles.

[Eric]

You can't compare down-grading a game for a platform to upgrading it to one! FF1-6 were on platforms that are less powerful than DS and GBA, which is why a port was so nice. Porting old FF games to PS3 would be a waste unless they rehauled the entire game to make use of the system's power.

and as for CoD3...have you noticed there haven't been many other games trying to downgrade for Wii? CoD3 did poorly on Wii to begin with-- the graphics were noticably worse on it and controls were clunky and not too well thought out.

Irrelevant, you took only a portion of a response completely out of context. CoD3 was just a recent example of a game which had a lower-graphical end build that was recently released to counter a statement that said this sort of thing isn't done. Also, the main reason why there aren't many games downgraded for the Wii yet is because the system came out only a few months ago.

Exactly-- you make a game to take advantage of the Wii's features. You don't make a game based on normal console and then try to make it work on a Wii.

I am not sure how this is exactly relevant to the topic, but I will respond anyway.

Since we are talking about sales: EA and Ubisoft have both been quite successful in Wiifying their games. Ubisoft has had a lot of issues with the publishing sector rushing the development sector. There were a lot of issues, and a lot of things had to be simplified; but millions of software units were still sold to the public between all of these games.

For the statement that companies are not able to make a profit from making Wii versions of games, this is totally incorrect. Wii sales boosted Ubisoft's profit margin by 78% over last year with multiple Wii ports; total sales were up 24%. The new Rayman game being yet another example of a game which has both a high end graphical build (Xbox 360, PS3 version was canned) and a lower graphical build among the Ubisoft releases.




This all said, there is actually a Mobile version of the game, so they are in fact working on lower end builds. I won't be surprised at all if there are PS2, DS, and Wii volumes of FF13. I really have no idea at this point, but I don't see how an Xbox 360 port would be more likely than lower end builds for systems that the game will sell on. If it is ported to Xbox 360, from what I have gathered, Xbox 360 gamers hate Square and Japanese games in general.

I wish you would post your sources when you give us figures. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these figures and draw my own conclusions.

Anyway, Rayman was a launch title in a very VERY slim library at launch (and if you count virtual console games as launch titles I punch you in the god damned throat ). while it may have made money for Ubisoft and is considered a "port", it is a unique example.

Honestly, 98% of the ports for the Wii (and this IS a number I'm pulling out of my ass to exaggerate my claims) are going to be half-assed "oh crap we need to get into the Wii market let's make a port for SUPERFIGHTERFLYINGWHATEVER game X to the Wii" games, which will most likely make little to no money.

That's the best case. Worst case is that people will gobble the shit up because of the Wii's smallish library of good games and the console will get a bad rep for having mostly junk on it, which will in turn hurt the sales of future Wii consoles.

"
How many times do I have to tell you people Seeker works for "The Man"!

[Julius Seeker]

I wish you would post your sources when you give us figures. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these figures and draw my own conclusions.

Anyway, Rayman was a launch title in a very VERY slim library at launch (and if you count virtual console games as launch titles I punch you in the god damned throat ). while it may have made money for Ubisoft and is considered a "port", it is a unique example.

Honestly, 98% of the ports for the Wii (and this IS a number I'm pulling out of my ass to exaggerate my claims) are going to be half-assed "oh crap we need to get into the Wii market let's make a port for SUPERFIGHTERFLYINGWHATEVER game X to the Wii" games, which will most likely make little to no money.

That's the best case. Worst case is that people will gobble the shit up because of the Wii's smallish library of good games and the console will get a bad rep for having mostly junk on it, which will in turn hurt the sales of future Wii consoles.

Irrelevant, the point of the matter was that companies did in fact make a profit when you said could not. Also, Ubisoft was not a unique example, at the very least I am sure Nintendo made a profit off of their millions of Twilight Princess copies sold. http://kotaku.com/gaming/ea/ea-playing- ... 250757.php According to this article, and this one http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home EA essentially says Wii ports = profit, PS3 = bad.

How many times do I have to tell you people Seeker works for "The Man"!

You're probably closer than you think, but I have never worked for Nintendo =P

[Oracle]

I wish you would post your sources when you give us figures. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these figures and draw my own conclusions.

Anyway, Rayman was a launch title in a very VERY slim library at launch (and if you count virtual console games as launch titles I punch you in the god damned throat ). while it may have made money for Ubisoft and is considered a "port", it is a unique example.

Honestly, 98% of the ports for the Wii (and this IS a number I'm pulling out of my ass to exaggerate my claims) are going to be half-assed "oh crap we need to get into the Wii market let's make a port for SUPERFIGHTERFLYINGWHATEVER game X to the Wii" games, which will most likely make little to no money.

That's the best case. Worst case is that people will gobble the shit up because of the Wii's smallish library of good games and the console will get a bad rep for having mostly junk on it, which will in turn hurt the sales of future Wii consoles.

So you don't think it has anything to do with the fact that the games were launche the month of the system's release. Google the figures I posted and you'll find articles most likely.

I actually think it has everything to do with the game (Rayman) being released the same month the Wii was released. That's exactly my point in the second paragraph that you quoted me on.

Edit : Seeker ninja-edited his post above, I refuse to edit mine to reflect that!

[Julius Seeker]

Edit : Seeker ninja-edited his post above, I refuse to edit mine to reflect that!

Then respond now, the original thing I wrote was quite pointless which is why I edited it, plus I needed to respond to Eric (latest update). If you won't respond to my new and improved post because it is above your last one, then respond now =P


Your previous post is irrelevant, the point of the matter was that companies did in fact make a profit when you said could not. Also, Ubisoft was not a unique example, at the very least I am sure Nintendo made a profit off of their millions of Twilight Princess copies sold. http://kotaku.com/gaming/ea/ea-playing- ... 250757.php According to this article, and this one http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home EA essentially says Wii ports = profit, PS3 = bad.

[Oracle]

I wish you would post your sources when you give us figures. I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd like to see these figures and draw my own conclusions.

Anyway, Rayman was a launch title in a very VERY slim library at launch (and if you count virtual console games as launch titles I punch you in the god damned throat ). while it may have made money for Ubisoft and is considered a "port", it is a unique example.

Honestly, 98% of the ports for the Wii (and this IS a number I'm pulling out of my ass to exaggerate my claims) are going to be half-assed "oh crap we need to get into the Wii market let's make a port for SUPERFIGHTERFLYINGWHATEVER game X to the Wii" games, which will most likely make little to no money.

That's the best case. Worst case is that people will gobble the shit up because of the Wii's smallish library of good games and the console will get a bad rep for having mostly junk on it, which will in turn hurt the sales of future Wii consoles.

Irrelevant, the point of the matter was that companies did in fact make a profit when you said could not. Also, Ubisoft was not a unique example, at the very least I am sure Nintendo made a profit off of their millions of Twilight Princess copies sold. http://kotaku.com/gaming/ea/ea-playing- ... 250757.php According to this article, and this one http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home EA essentially says Wii ports = profit, PS3 = bad.

(got caught up in something at work, I know I know, work before posting?! BLASPHEMY!)

The entire point of my post (that the Wii is not a good port console, and that publishers need to make exclusives to make money off of the system) was to illustrate the fact that to make real money off of the console, publishers are really going to have to start developing more titles with the Wii in mind first are foremost.

Can publishers make money off of garbage ports in which they whip up a point interface to accommodate the Wii remote? Sure. But the real money to be had is going to be in original, Wii-centric titles that really show off what the system can do.

My post was never intended to dismiss the possibility of publishers making money on PS3/XBox360 to Wii ports. If they want to make the real cash, however, they need to make games with the Wii in mind, not as an afterthought.

I think it's just going to get old. We're going to see a ton of games which are ported over to the Wii as a last minute scramble for a cash grab, and most of these games will suck. In turn, I believe that it will cause consumers to be very cautious when buying a game that was not originally released with the Wii in mind.

And on your comment about how Nintendo made money off of their Twilight Princess "port", you could have published that thing with 0 Wii-specific ehancements and it still would have sold a bajillion copies. The franchise is just that popular. Again, another example with unique circumstances.

[Tessian]

The entire point of my post (that the Wii is not a good port console, and that publishers need to make exclusives to make money off of the system) was to illustrate the fact that to make real money off of the console, publishers are really going to have to start developing more titles with the Wii in mind first are foremost.

This is all I was ever saying-- I never claimed Wii games weren't successful, I'm saying that if you're going to make a good Wii game you have to keep its uniqueness in mind when starting. Porting a game that was on 360 to Wii after the fact, like CoD3, will still make some money, but not nearly as much if you had made a CoD spinoff specifically for the Wii.

Also, what other games have been ported from 360/PS3 to Wii and been a good success? It's the only decent game that was ported that I can recall...Rayman doesn't count as they obviously revamped it for Wii.

[Julius Seeker]

(got caught up in something at work, I know I know, work before posting?! BLASPHEMY!)

The entire point of my post (that the Wii is not a good port console, and that publishers need to make exclusives to make money off of the system) was to illustrate the fact that to make real money off of the console, publishers are really going to have to start developing more titles with the Wii in mind first are foremost.

Can publishers make money off of garbage ports in which they whip up a point interface to accommodate the Wii remote? Sure. But the real money to be had is going to be in original, Wii-centric titles that really show off what the system can do.

My post was never intended to dismiss the possibility of publishers making money on PS3/XBox360 to Wii ports. If they want to make the real cash, however, they need to make games with the Wii in mind, not as an afterthought.

I think it's just going to get old. We're going to see a ton of games which are ported over to the Wii as a last minute scramble for a cash grab, and most of these games will suck. In turn, I believe that it will cause consumers to be very cautious when buying a game that was not originally released with the Wii in mind.

And on your comment about how Nintendo made money off of their Twilight Princess "port", you could have published that thing with 0 Wii-specific ehancements and it still would have sold a bajillion copies. The franchise is just that popular. Again, another example with unique circumstances.

I agree, at least around launch they can sell 200-500K copies of a rushed port, but it won't work now with increasing competition.

I do, however, feel that if Wii related controls would make logical sense in an existing game, then it would work better than the original (think Godfather: Blackhand Edition). Off hand I am going to use the Phoenix Wright from GBA to DS ports as an example, they work better on DS with the more streamlined controls, though, as Phoenix Wright 4 is proving, it is better to think of the game for the DS from the ground up; which was your point.