Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
He was asking everyone to READ READ!
IGN France: Yes, Redfall was originally planned for PS5
- Thread starter jm89
- Start date
jm89
Member
Uh that doesn't necassirly mean it's permanent. It can be a time limited exclusive and be asked to be excluded from xbox.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
It's still a prequel to the game that's already available on the systems it was released on. There were no new story beats added to it to tie it into the Remake.Yeah, they ported the version re-created in UE4 to match the art style of the VII R. Why wouldn't they port the much more popular R itself ?
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Proof of superman and bloodborne moneyhat too...Oh wait no that's bullshit but sure let believe everythingelse in it and interpret it as permanent exclusivity....It's more proof than anything that says to the contrary
graywolf323
Member
to be fair, that cat would likely do a better job
yep, and what do you know? the original FFVII is available on Xbox
Buy FINAL FANTASY VII | Xbox
FINAL FANTASY VII, the timeless classic loved by a legion of fans, comes to Xbox One with a number of helpful extra features! Experience the return of an epic adventure beyond imagination, culminating in the final battle to decide the fate of the planet.
www.xbox.com
Last edited:
Kvally
Member
I posted the link originally, but I used "supposedly" because it's the media article that put in the "permanent exclusive". I can't even trust the media anymore! That is how bad it has got. I can't trust gamers. I can't trust Sony or MS and I can't trust the media. Hell, I can't even trust lawyers anymore?
The only one I can trust is Eva....as there is no question she will factually excite me everyday!
What, what? What were we talking about? Oh...fuck... Redfall.
Unknown?
Member
I didn't say anything about the business practices, just pointing out that you had bad examples. One is funding a project that wont come out, the other is buying a company where all projects were already sound. I wouldn't like Sony doing a big purchase on that scale either though since you're so invested in the business side.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
not at bethesda.
Mr.Phoenix
Member
That there are people still trying to spin this after all the BS that's been going on in the acquisition thread says a lot.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
It means "Timed" exclusivity, of course.
How do I know that? Because it mentions games that literally are timed exclusives. It means Final Fantasy and Silent Hill. Both are timed exclusives.
20 posts later, and you still haven't proven that Sony is still blocking FFVII Remake from coming to Xbox or if they extended the exclusivity period. You just don't want to accept that Square Enix isn't porting their game on Xbox on their own.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
It means "Timed" exclusivity, of course.
How do I know that? Because it mentions games that literally are timed exclusives. It means Final Fantasy and Silent Hill. Both are timed exclusives.
20 posts later, and you still haven't proven that Sony is still blocking FFVII Remake from coming to Xbox or if they extended the exclusivity period. You just don't want to accept that Square Enix isn't porting their game on Xbox on their own.
Microsoft paid to bring dragon quest to gamepass...you honestly think they wouldn't want ffvii if they could have it?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
I posted the link originally, but I used "supposedly" because it's the media article that put in the "permanent exclusive". I can't even trust the media anymore! That is how bad it has got. I can't trust gamers. I can't trust Sony or MS and I can't trust the media. Hell, I can't even trust lawyers anymore?
The only one I can trust is Eva....as there is no question she will factually excite me everyday!
What, what? What were we talking about? Oh...fuck... Redfall.
... to focus.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
FFVII's box said 12 month exclusive, which has been 'officially' extended even after the term at least once publicly. That doesn't really mean a lot.
It means "Timed" exclusivity, of course.
How do I know that? Because it mentions games that literally are timed exclusives. It means Final Fantasy and Silent Hill. Both are timed exclusives.
20 posts later, and you still haven't proven that Sony is still blocking FFVII Remake from coming to Xbox or if they extended the exclusivity period. You just don't want to accept that Square Enix isn't porting their game on Xbox on their own.
Square extended FFVIIR's exclusivity with the re-release, why is it so hard to figure that they are doing so again ?
From the same guys who argue that of course Starfield would have come to PS5, it's a bit strange that this is the hill you are willing to die on.
Why wouldn't Square port one of their most popular games to more consoles ? Especially after them putting out a lot less popular games like Crisis Core and Diofield on Xbox.
Last edited:
soulbait
Member
But did they lie about Zenimax? I just see it all as PR speak. What does "wanting gamers to play everywhere" mean? If they mean on all consoles and gaming devices, sure, removing it games from PS5 would go against this, but that would also mean the games need to be Nintendo, Macs, mobile devices and any device that is capable of gaming and powerful enough to run the game. But if they are referring to the availability to be able to play these games, even through streaming via multiple devices, then yes indeed you can play the games everywhere.
Same when they said the want the games available for more people. Some would say that taking the game away from PS5 is breaking this, but others could argue that by having the game on GamePass, you have lowered the barrier of entry to be able to play the game. $60/70 for a single game, or $9.99-$14.99/month for 100s of games is indeed giving access to more players due to the lower cost of entry.
In their PR speak, they have not really lied. If you took what they said as if it meant the games would not leave platforms, then sure. But if you look at through the lens of MS' services, then it was not a lie. And when you consider it is their job to speak up MS' services it makes sense. I am not taking a stance either way, because I do not care, but if you look at it in different angles you can see the different perspectives.
As for the Activision merger, I see it a little difference. No where in the Zenimax merger did they come out and say "X game franchise would remain for Y amount of years." They said how they would honor the current contracts they have, which they did, and then they will evaluate on a game by game basis, which they have continued to do so. As mentioned above, all the other stuff said was PR crap. But for Activision, they have stated that COD will have feature parity and day one release on other platforms for at least 10 years. That is a clear statement, no PR bullshit, stating what they want to do. When those 10 years are up, I imagine they will evaluate the marketplace to determine if it is worth keeping COD on other systems. 10 years is a long time in gaming, and COD may not be as big as it is today. However, if it is as big or bigger than it is today, they will be foolish to not keep it on other systems, due to the revenue the game produces, unless their metrics show otherwise.
And I do not care. It does not impact me one way or another, except for my wallet, if the merger goes through or if the games are available on all platforms or not. I simply do not care at this moment. Gaming is just an entertainment avenue for me. I do not make money on it. I do not have any businesses tied up in it. It does not really impact me in any meaningful way outside of entertainment choices, which is a luxury I am fortunate to have. If I was in the gaming business, then maybe I would have different feelings on the competition, but I do not care as just a gamer on these business decisions. They do not impact me greatly and no matter the complaining I do about it, they will make whatever business decision they feel will make them the most money.
Last edited:
dotnotbot
Member
I get that but at the same time no one expected they would remove existing games so it's like saying the water is wet.
Roman Empire
Member
Just companies playing by the rules of the game. And the rule in question is MONEY. "I pay you and I tell what you can or can't do".
Mr.Phoenix
Member
No one said Xbox exclusivity is bad... you are moving the posts... arguing in bad faith. And you know it.
Mr Moose
Member
What about this one, which was also mentioned by MS lawyers? What other platforms do you think the "12 months after release" are?
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
No, Square Enix didn't.
The exclusivity period for the PS4 / Xbox One game (Final Fantasy XVII Remake) was over in April 2021.
Final Fantasy VII Intergrade is a separate game (only available on PS5) was exclusive until December 10, 2021.
Let's assume for a second you're correct (although you are not), and SE extended the exclusivity from April 2021 to December 2021. It has been 13 months since the exclusivity period ended.
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
So the exclusivity period has ended after being extended and was even annoàunced as extended by sony but they chose to hide its permanency...The only thing you have is that the exclusivity period has ended and the game still isn't on Xbox....It is now conspircy theory time, Sony paid for full exclusivity, just like bloodborne and are now developping a superman game....But you don't get it guys, it is you that are wrong.
Liamario
Banned
Kvally
Member
What about this one, which was also mentioned by MS lawyers? What other platforms do you think the "12 months after release" are?
ChorizoPicozo
Member
switch and OUYA obviously.
What about this one, which was also mentioned by MS lawyers? What other platforms do you think the "12 months after release" are?
Stop pulling shit out of your ass and start showing us some facts. Trying to have people look at things through your deranged brain with no substance isn't helping. Everything you've said is tinfoil conspiracy with no solid evidence. Why aren't you asking for FFVIIR to be made available on the Switch? They were able to get the prequel remake on that console, or does it not fit into your agenda?
Ar¢tos
Member
.
MS hold on Octopath Traveler ended in February and they still haven't announced a Playstation version.
You would think they want to take advantage of the success of the 2nd game for some extra sales of the 1st one...
Meh... Just Square being Square.
MS hold on Octopath Traveler ended in February and they still haven't announced a Playstation version.
You would think they want to take advantage of the success of the 2nd game for some extra sales of the 1st one...
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
It is permanent, it has to, you got
What about this one, which was also mentioned by MS lawyers? What other platforms do you think the "12 months after release" are?
adamsapple
's interpretation of a document full of errors redacted by people that knows nothing about gaming that says it and it paints Ms as the victim as they are trying to buy a publisher, it has to be true.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
And Starfield's PS5 existence was confirmed by Zenimax's Pete Hines himself. Who am I to argue that Starfield wouldn't have released when Pete said that they were not thinking about exclusivity?
graywolf323
Member
honestly I wonder if he'll ever decide to go into politics, because he's clearly excellent at PR & corporate politicsYes, but Phil Spencer is full of shit.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Do you have proofs that Ms did not make it permanently exclusive?Prove me that this contract does not exists, like a picture of it not existing, or maybe a direct declaration of everything that doesn't exists.
Heisenberg007
Gold Journalism
Yes. I believe that.
Microsoft also hasn't brought FFXIV to Xbox despite massive demand.
Roman Empire
Member
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
9 pages! holy poop!
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Which kills the "Sony was going to make Starfield exclusive, so MS needed to rescue it and make it exclusive." Discord tard narrative.
TheGodfather07
Member
Maybe square enix don't want to create a port for xbox because final fantasy isnt big on xbox. I doubt it has anything to do with Sony when the game is years old already. The reason why it feels like square enix dont give a shit about xbox is because they don't. Their games don't perform well on the xbox platform. Especially final fantasy.
Kvally
Member
Bumblebeetuna
Member
I, too, believe SE brings smaller Final Fantasy titles to Xbox but won't port over the remake of by far the most popular one because uh, idk, some reason other than moneyhats.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
You just described less risky ROI. Makes sense for struggling Square who recently sold off their entire western IP portfolio.
Last edited:
azertydu91
Hard to Kill
Nah, not a lot of people trust jim, probably also because he doesn't bullshit as much(not that hez doesn't lie, just way less) but yeah most people even on the sony side are not so fond of jim....These two should head up the marketing teams for Depends.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Just gotta hope that the FTC bring those Sony papers to court so we can actually see secret inside business info on Sonys exclusivity deals...you might then finally get your receipts.
GHG
Gold Member
The only reason they've been willing to bring smaller titles to Xbox at all in some instances is moneyhats.
Whatever happened to Octopath Traveller 1 on playstation? It's still missing, why aren't the gaming media investigating that?
Gobjuduck
Banned
they are saying Xbox took games away from PlayStation. That Xbox shouldn't be able to purchases ABK because they will take away games from PlayStation.
But PlayStation is well versed in taking games away from Xbox, for much cheaper.
People here can be upset about Phil Spencer's "hypocrisy" or "lies" but HE himself never said PlayStation WILL have all future Bethesda games. PlayStation shouldn't be entitled to Xbox's first party games after a purchase, that's not how the industry works.
Last edited:
Kvally
Member
I am not on either side. But I see them for who they are. Corporate mouth pieces and both are equally full of shit. They are also multi-millionaires, so I guess I should shut the fuck up
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
And everyone will all sit down and STFU when they read just like MS's there too. Right? Right?
Who am I kidding.
Last edited:
Your pretending like you don't know he means that as in a game being only on one console and nowhere else.
xbox deserves all this PR cluster fuck. their messaging sucks asssss.
You may not accept that concept of "exclusive", but you know that's what he means.
Exclusive as in available on one platform. Xbox has zero of these in the works. Play on Xbox, play on PC, play via streaming on a variety of devices, some on Sony, some on Nintendo.
Not able to be played on one or two of those options doesn't make something exclusive to Xbox console.
So we can at least stop pretending we don't know what he meant. You can argue that Bethesda games were going to be on PS, that's fair but stop with the bs.