It's all about money. This has nothing to do with loyalty, or Square betraying Sony, or any of that crap.
360 leads PS3 in the Western world.
For any game, it makes financial sense to release a game on the 360 as well as the PS3, as long as the following equation is true:
If X > Y, then Z
Where
X = Predicted profit from 360 sales
Y = cost of porting from PS3 to 360
Z = create 360 version of game
Why do you t...
It's all about money. This has nothing to do with loyalty, or Square betraying Sony, or any of that crap.
360 leads PS3 in the Western world.
For any game, it makes financial sense to release a game on the 360 as well as the PS3, as long as the following equation is true:
If X > Y, then Z
Where
X = Predicted profit from 360 sales
Y = cost of porting from PS3 to 360
Z = create 360 version of game
Why do you ...
First game I'll try is Mass Effect. Wonder if it could actually help texture pop-in?
The reasons are irrelevant.
The people saying Microsoft ripped the idea off of Sony, or that optional installations are comparable to mandatory installations, are just plain wrong.
Having more options is ALWAYS a bonus. How much of a benefit you consider the bonus is up to the individual.
"Have to"? You don't "have to". It's a new OPTIONAL option.
OPTIONAL.
PS -
All fanboys are hypocritical. They always ignore their own side's failing. It's in their nature.
Yeah, installing games on a hard drive was completely unheard of until the PS3.
Wait, what did you type your post on again? A COMPUTER, you say? Fascinating.
Dude, it's not that complicated.
Mandatory installs = annoying and too PC-like, in some people's opinion, including mine.
Optional installs to improve loading time and performance = great idea.
Notice the keyword? OPTIONAL.
They aren't really comparable beyond the basic technical idea of "installing something".
Uh, hate to break it to you, but this is a business.
"Money" is the only excuse anyone needs.
...what about when Square left Nintendo to develop exclusively for Sony in the first place?
Why is it people only care about companies "betraying" one another when it's Sony getting "betrayed"?
It's a business, folks. And quite simply, a multi-console release for FF13 is a business decision. If you wanted to see FF13 exclusively on the PS3, then maybe Sony should've worked harder to secure the North American market early on.
2 months is a pretty long time for a game to be released only for a single system. That's the window most games tend to sell the most copies.
If you own a 360 AND a PS3, why would you wait for the PS3 version?
This will boost 360 sales of Rock Band 2, which Microsoft can then point at and say "See? SEE?!"
One of the worst moments of your life? Really?
Maybe you care a bit too much about the console war, chief.
You people are reaching.
The game will almost certainly be on several DVD's, ala Mistwalker's games, but I don't believe for a minute it will be "scaled down" in any way.
Otherwise, you wouldn't be seeing a simultaneous console release.
Expect multiple DVDs ala Mistwalker's games.
"PSTards"?
Open Zone is over there, bud.
Betrayal? Are you serious? It's a business. Deal with it.
Did Squaresoft "betray" Nintendo when they left for Sony after FF6? Where was your outrage then?
Oh, I see. You only care when SONY gets "betrayed".
Holy. Crap.
An idea rip-off is still an idea rip-off.
Does Microsoft rip-off ideas more often than Sony? Almost definitely.
Do Sony fanboys give Sony a pass when they do so, but not Microsoft? Almost definitely.
Hypocracy, thy name is Fanboy.
Why is it everyone attacks Microsoft for "Avatars", but praises Sony for "Trophies"?
Uh, this "news" is a week old. How was it approved?
Sony's greatest flaw this generation has always been overconfidence.
Overconfidence that millions upon millions of people would get the PS3 at the $600 'even without games'.
Overconfidence as to the relevance of GTA4.
And now overconfidence as to the relevance of FF13.