Star Ocean 4: The Last Hope <International> - out NOW!

[cliffbo]

That wouldn't be to bad but considering the game is almost always going to sell more on PS3...there is no reason to not launch at the same time on both platforms.

Well if they did a simultaneous release for both platforms, the game probably wouldn't have the extras.

that is the point here

[Diresu]

that is the point here

Thing is, if they came out at the same time you wouldn't NEED the extras to sell the ps3 version. Extras can be DLC. If i have to choose between mostly meaningless extras or early access to the game...id pick the latter every time.

[curryking1]

Cliff of course we all want extras or as much content as possible, that is from our perspective.

But the other thinking is from SE's perspective and they should be thinking about sales.

Neither idea takes priority over the other, they can both easily happen, only determined by what SE does. We aren't disputing the likelihood of what will happen if SE does X, only saying that if SE did Y instead of X they would have maybe got more sales. I don't think anyone argued against either of these two scenarios...

I don't think anyone has disputed the fact that the PS3 version now gets more extras (how can you?).

What Diresu is saying while looking at the sales perspective, and what I think also, SE may lose sales simply because they are missing the simultaneous release for X, Y, or Z reason.

That's not to ignore that later, much later, the PS3 version gets extras, only that we are suggesting there might be consequences like many sales lost for making Star Ocean IV on the PS3 an 'old' game.

Does the PS3 version become the much better version? Of course, yet the sales may not favour this decision by SE.

Simultaneous vs. not simultaneous leads just to two different scenarios. Potentially more sales without or with fewer extras OR potentially less sales while one version has some or many extras.

Neither of these things 'outweighs' the other, everyone I'm sure recognizes these are the two different possibilities and they both have different consequences.

Ultimately SE should be looking to maximize sales of their games and minimizing costs, so in that sense Diresu may be right to say 'there is no or little reason' not to have a simultaneous release. He's not ignoring the fact that we get extras and the PS3 version becomes 'better' when releasing so many months later, only emphasizing the poor decision making by SE to make moves which might lead to fewer sales of SOIV.

These two options for SE to take don't contradict each other or are in argument (again no one is disputing 'Oh look the PS3 version has so many extras now'), they are simply two different paths leading to two different scenarios.

[blackdrgn]

*cough* FF13 thread *cough* this is such a contradictive argument.
That's all I'll say on the matter, but I mean no offense by it.
I'm sure SO4 will be a great game like all of the ones before it anyway & we can appreciate the extras.

[Diresu]

Exactly Curry. You hit the nail right on the head.

[JasonXe]

Exactly Curry. You hit the nail right on the head.

[Gegenki]

I didn't even know this was coming out for PS3. If I wasn't so lazy I would have played it on 360 already.

[cliffbo]

Thing is, if they came out at the same time you wouldn't NEED the extras to sell the ps3 version. Extras can be DLC. If i have to choose between mostly meaningless extras or early access to the game...id pick the latter every time.

oh my GOD! but i thought SE was getting it in the ass because they haven't utilised Blu-ray? i thought that it was nice to have extra stuff. devs need to read this thread and not the FF thread because clearly people are happy to have games of 7GB on Blu-ray

Cliff of course we all want extras or as much content as possible, that is from our perspective.

but Curry, this isn't a 'what if' argument, it's a 'what is' argument and SE never released the games simultaneously. so there is little point in bemoaning that fact. i would rather see the positives such as fully voiced, extra quests, more content and new characters.(which SE were clearly too lazy to add but other devs have.) to me, that is worth the wait because it would not have been in the game if it had been released at the same time. and people can't even say that it could have come as DLC because they will say exactly what i would say: it should have been in the game from the start.

[Gegenki]

oh my GOD! but i thought SE was getting it in the ass because they haven't utilised Blu-ray? i thought that it was nice to have extra stuff. devs need to read this thread and not the FF thread because clearly people are happy to have games of 7GB on Blu-ray

Obviously extras are good and for you it is worth the wait, but as I said, I didn't even know this game was coming to playstation. My cousin already got the game on 360 - he has both consoles. For him its usually a case of which version offers more. Extras are nice but the only reason a playstation release should come after a 360 release is if the extras are a real deal maker, in which case the 360 version would probably be in a state such that it shouldn't be released.


Speaking of the Final Fantasy thread - We're not happy about 7GB games on blu-ray. - Yes SE should put the Japanese audio track in (aha! so how I avoided the whole dub / sub thing there!) because they can and because it will make the game better for all those who want it, but don't make the PS3 version come after the 360 version.

Thats just fuel. People will say should I buy a 360 or a PS3 - people will answer - 360 because the games come out first. Whilst those who are extremely hard core may love japanese audio (I do for street fighter but couldn't care for final fantasy). The vast majority of people won't even know the difference.

The obvious counter to that is that it needs to progressively get to the point where ps3 versions of games get extras so often that they are known for having extras, but as I said before, they need to be real deal makers not random side crap that most people won't care about to justify a late release.

In any case building upon my last paragraph as well as the first we are definitely not at the point where a late release can be justified unless the PS3 version contains something to make the 360 version is to appear totally gimped.

A crude example would be the PS3 version having an extra story arc. Someone like my cousin would probably wait for the PS3 version then. The Japanese language tracks mean nothing to him, and therefore even if he had known the PS3 version was coming, he would have gotten it on 360. An extra story arc would have of course made the 360 gamers question SE for giving them a gimped game. Which is exactly the issue going on in the final fantasy thread. I.e. SE want the games to be the same.

But multi console houses are a special case so it boils down more to making the playstation ubiquitously known for having extra features. But once again as I said, game delays shouldn't be happening for such weak extras.

[cliffbo]

well i for one can see why devs would do this (not SE, they were intending SO to be exclusive but then when it bombed, ported it over. hence the one year wait). i WANT this to continue because if multiplats get simultaneous releases, we will never see the benefits of Blu-ray and maybe even Cell a little further down the road. it would be nice to have more Demon's Souls, but there will always be more third party games that are built for all systems. the only possible solution, that would cater both to our requirements and the devs reputation, would be to release the PS3 version at a later date with extras and perhaps improved gameplay.

[Diresu]

well i for one can see why devs would do this (not SE, they were intending SO to be exclusive but then when it bombed, ported it over. hence the one year wait). i WANT this to continue because if multiplats get simultaneous releases, we will never see the benefits of Blu-ray and maybe even Cell a little further down the road. it would be nice to have more Demon's Souls, but there will always be more third party games that are built for all systems. the only possible solution, that would cater both to our requirements and the devs reputation, would be to release the PS3 version at a later date with extras and perhaps improved gameplay.

This is fine for you but I disagree completely. If I KNOW a game I really want is coming out on 360 now and on ps3 a year from now, I will not wait for the PS3 version. At best I will buy the 360 version and RENT the ps3 version just to see the extras. So, anyone that is like me will not buy a PS3 version at all and therefore Sony will lose a sale they could get with a same day release. Utilizing Blu-Ray and all that is fine but there is no reason it can't be done during the normal dev cycle. Besides, most extras seem really minimal...Vesperia being the exception. Lastly, a lot of games come out in a year...you have to do something really amazing to make me give a shit about a game that came out a year ago when I could be playing 10 new games.

[AC!D]

This is fine for you but I disagree completely. If I KNOW a game I really want is coming out on 360 now and on ps3 a year from now, I will not wait for the PS3 version. At best I will buy the 360 version and RENT the ps3 version just to see the extras. So, anyone that is like me will not buy a PS3 version at all and therefore Sony will lose a sale they could get with a same day release. Utilizing Blu-Ray and all that is fine but there is no reason it can't be done during the normal dev cycle. Besides, most extras seem really minimal...Vesperia being the exception. Lastly, a lot of games come out in a year...you have to do something really amazing to make me give a shit about a game that came out a year ago when I could be playing 10 new games.

I agree with this comment. I tried to convince myself as best i could to wait for the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 but i cant. The games just to good as much as i hate giving MS my hard earned money.

[cliffbo]

I agree with this comment. I tried to convince myself as best i could to wait for the PS3 version of Mass Effect 2 but i cant. The games just to good as much as i hate giving MS my hard earned money.

but that is different, AC!D. are you glad you waited for NGS? that sort of thing could become the norm if devs decide to take this route. there are so many games to fill that void that it doesn't really matter if we have to wait

[AC!D]

but that is different, AC!D. are you glad you waited for NGS? that sort of thing could become the norm if devs decide to take this route. there are so many games to fill that void that it doesn't really matter if we have to wait

Well Cliff i have a shortlist of 12 to 15 games i want to get between now and the end of May which is way to much and i still placed my order for Mass Effect 2 6 months ago because i love the series. If a game is great you wont wait. Star Ocean is a mediocre game though which got mediocre reviews so in that sense its a different story. On the other hand i suppose if Mass Effect 2 comes out on PS3 with extras then ill trade my 360 copy and get it. Still though i think the Mass Effect Universe and sales on PS3 will suffer because the universe has not been established on PS3 no matter how many extras they want to throw in. Its just a stupid idea not to release the game the same time. To prove this point i will refer to the sales of Bioshock 2 for PS3 in February next year which will be huge compared to the late original game which came with extras and only sold half a million.

[cliffbo]

Well Cliff i have a shortlist of 12 to 15 games i want to get between now and the end of May which is way to much and i still placed my order for Mass Effect 2 6 months ago because i love the series. If a game is great you wont wait. Star Ocean is a mediocre game though which got mediocre reviews so in that sense its a different story. On the other hand i suppose if Mass Effect 2 comes out on PS3 with extras then ill trade my 360 copy and get it. Still though i think the Mass Effect Universe and sales on PS3 will suffer because the universe has not been established on PS3 no matter how many extras they want to throw in. Its just a stupid idea not to release the game the same time. To prove this point i will refer to the sales of Bioshock 2 for PS3 in February next year which will be huge compared to the late original game which came with extras and only sold half a million.

that's just though. everyone on this site wants the PS3 version to utilise Blu-ray and Cell, therefore making the PS3 version a LOT better. but how would that work out for the devs? it's one thing having comparisons that have to zoom into the graphics to find little differences and the occasional (very small) framerate differences because it's been ported and not specifically written for the PS3, but it's another when the graphics are better, there is more in the game and there is more going on on screen. the 360 owners would be up in arms and those devs would lose a massive market over time. it is the best compromise (for the devs) to get sales on the 360 first and then improve it for the PS3 later on. it's not the best scenario for us, but it's compromise or continue to get buggy, inferior ports.

[Gegenki]

lol^ I like that
To prove my point allow me to refer you to the future

[AC!D]

that's just though. everyone on this site wants the PS3 version to utilise Blu-ray and Cell, therefore making the PS3 version a LOT better. but how would that work out for the devs? it's one thing having comparisons that have to zoom into the graphics to find little differences and the occasional (very small) framerate differences because it's been ported and not specifically written for the PS3, but it's another when the graphics are better, there is more in the game and there is more going on on screen. the 360 owners would be up in arms and those devs would lose a massive market over time. it is the best compromise (for the devs) to get sales on the 360 first and then improve it for the PS3 later on. it's not the best scenario for us, but it's compromise or continue to get buggy, inferior ports.

Well thats just a quick way of making the PS3 die then Cliff. Who is gonna buy a PS3 if all the best games come out 6 months to a year later on it?
If you ask me you have this entire thing turned around. Devs are putting pressure on MS for a storage Solution so that they can make use of the PS3's advantages and not the other way around e.g Rage and Mass Effect will be on 2 discs and God knows how many FFXIII will use. Devs will start switching to devlop first on PS3 and then port to 360 scenario as time goes by. Do you think anyone wants to face the backlash Sega is getting now for the PS3 version of Bayonetta? I think not. Screw the delays because games are almost like for like and have been so for a while now bar a few.

Coming back to your using the advantages of PS3 for games point though i think thats just content wise and probably little else architecture wise. Besides There are so many amazing PS3 exclusives who needs 3rd party devs to make more graphical masterpieces? I think you need to get over this obsession that every game should look as good as Uncharted or Killzone. Dragon Age Origins looks average graphically but is still fantastic. Hell some 3rd party devs are getting amazing results on multi platform games. Just have a look at how incredible Assassins Creed 2 looks.

[curryking1]

cliff, you know in the Console Sales thread you just talked in some length about how stupid people are?

And iSDK showed us that people will buy $10 dollar crap instead of spend $50 for gold like Zelda Twilight Princess?

People can't see the difference between Zelda Twilight Princess and a bag of poop, but they will see the difference between two versions of the same game?

Really?

Now here you are saying the same people see the benefit of PS3 SOIV and comparison shop? Something which pretty much the entire market never, ever does? The same stupid people?

Really?

The same stupid people who fall for 'new,' no matter what it is? Who fall for 'PS3 games are worse, PS3 doesn't have facebook or twitter access, PS3 games have worse graphics, PS3 has less exclusives, PS3 doesn't have Modern Warfare 2--oh yes, you can find that--and PS3 games are just generally worse?'

Really?

How can you really justify that the market will see the benefit of the PS3 SOIV when they are so blind to thousands of other things which should really be even MORE obvious?

Like ACiD, I think you have this really backwards.

As much as PS3 SOIV will end up being the better version, this late release is not serving the Playstation brand and Playstation in general...

[cliffbo]

Well thats just a quick way of making the PS3 die then Cliff. Who is gonna buy a PS3 if all the best games come out 6 months to a year later on it?
If you ask me you have this entire thing turned around. Devs are putting pressure on MS for a storage Solution so that they can make use of the PS3's advantages and not the other way around e.g Rage and Mass Effect will be on 2 discs and God knows how many FFXIII will use. Devs will start switching to devlop first on PS3 and then port to 360 scenario as time goes by. Do you think anyone wants to face the backlash Sega is getting now for the PS3 version of Bayonetta? I think not. Screw the delays because games are almost like for like and have been so for a while now bar a few.

Coming back to your using the advantages of PS3 for games point though i think thats just content wise and probably little else architecture wise.

i am only talking short term solution here. as i've said before, come mid to late 2010, you will see more devs thinking exclusives along the lines of DS and Yakuza. but it takes time to make these games and in the meantime (if it's only a three month delay) i don't have a problem with the gap as long as we get extra content and better game mechanics. i don't like what SE has done at all and it smacks of desperation IMO. i'm not defending the devs here, but we all know by now that the PS3 IS harder to develop for and although many many devs are now coming to grips, there are still those that just don't seem to get it yet... but they will. i'm really fighting not to say what i want to say here... but damn it: as the wind goes out of the 360s sales (and it has and will continue) more and more devs will realise that a prospective 100 million console base is going to be far more profitable than a 55 million console base over the same time (or there abouts) Blu-ray is kicking in. PS3 games are visibly better. PSN games have become as important as Blu-ray games.

the devs WILL compromise even if we moan, so the best compromise isn't bad ports, it's to delay the PS3 release so that they can sell the game on the 360. that will change though and not in the distant future.

[AC!D]

I guess the few devs that are having problems could delay a few months but then thats got nothing to do with SO4 because that game was paid for to be timed. For a game like Bayonetta i would prefer a 3 month delay to get it right so i dont have to get the 360 version.

I think though you are confusing me and others because i understand it as you want devs to use the horsepower of the PS3 to make multi platform games better which will never happen because publishers would rather save a buck anywhere they can. Doing so would delay the game more than 3 months also which would be bad as CK says for the PS brand. On the other hand delaying Bayonetta makes sense. Fixing something broken makes sense. You are correct on that last point. I would wait for a fixed/delayed version of Bayonetta but not a delay to make a game better than the 360 version with extra content that could take more than 6 months like Mass Effect 2.