The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
We all know why it happens. For the developer, a better deal with the publisher and Console manufacturer. For the console manufacturer, a reason to buy their console. But is it really a good thing, for the consumer, that third-party titles like Final Fantasy 10 and Munch's Oddysey are only available on one console?
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Page:
Of course they don't own Square, just as Nintendo doesn't own Rare. In fact, the latter of those companies seems likely to stop it's Nintendo exclusive titles. As I mentioned in my own post, I am aware of the GC FF game - but this ISN'T going to be a conversion or port of any of the PSX or PS2 titles.
Sony DO have ownership in Square - they own around 20% of the company, if I remember correctly. Thus, they have a lot of influence. And there have been rumours that they will try to stop the Squaresoft - Nintendo agreement. I hope this isn't true, and it probably wouldn't succeed in any case - but it would still be great to see a PC or GC port/conversion of FF 10 and above...........,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
Sony DO have ownership in Square - they own around 20% of the company, if I remember correctly. Thus, they have a lot of influence. And there have been rumours that they will try to stop the Squaresoft - Nintendo agreement. I hope this isn't true, and it probably wouldn't succeed in any case - but it would still be great to see a PC or GC port/conversion of FF 10 and above...........,
See Ya ;-)
PinkPig
Squaresoft have to make a game by the end of the year for nintendo and sony have agreed to it... they don't own square as nintendo doesn't own RARE...
Also what is more important exclusive games or debut titles?
Also what is more important exclusive games or debut titles?
We all know why it happens. For the developer, a better deal with the publisher and Console manufacturer. For the console manufacturer, a reason to buy their console. But is it really a good thing, for the consumer, that third-party titles like Final Fantasy 10 and Munch's Oddysey are only available on one console?
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Particularly, with Munch's Oddysey, PC and PS2 versions were originally planned. It was then decided that the PC version should be scrapped, and the game should be a PS2 exclusive. But then, after many previews in PS magazines, it is again decided to scrap the PS2 version, and make the game an X-Box excusive. But has that helped the consumer, or the developer? Probably not. If there was a PC version, I would probably buy it. If there was a PS2 version, it would be another good reason to buy a PS2 - as it is, I've bought a Gamecube instead. I'm not saying that I'd buy a PS2 if the game was available - only I would consider it more than I did - along with FF10 there become a few games that I would like.
On the X-Box, the game seems to have fallen away from being a premium title - the X-Box flagship title is Halo, and the Oddworld game seems to have taken a low second place.
But what is the advantage for the consumer? Publishers will argue that exclusive titles can be developed specifically for a particular console, and so will be suited better to it, and much more fun to play. The multiformat, and consistantly poor Fifa games, along with PSX conversions of PC classics seem to give this some weight.
Personally, I hate the phrase "Only For...". To me, it sounds selfish, and bad for the average games player. I'm not suggesting that all games should be on all formats - that would be difficult, expensive, and most wouldn't sell. But we can see from EA's antics with Fifa and Harry Potter that it is possible if the company really wants sales. Why can't a decision be left until later? Perhaps a multiformat conversion of FF10 will come around sometime soon - but with Sony's ownership in Squaresoft, and rumours that they will even try to stop an entirely new FF game being developed for Gamecube, this seems more unlikely now than it ever has before.
Page: