Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Perfectly reasonable. I've had games I waited for, only to find they 
>> wouldn't run, yes.  And there are several very neat looking PS3 games I'd 
>> like to try.
> 
>   The most bitter I am about is that I can't play Final Fantasy games
> because they are all for PlayStation or PlayStation 2. I have never got
> motivated enough to buy a PS2 just to play FF games...
> 
>   It has always puzzle me why some companies make their games for one
> console only even when they don't have any personal interest in promoting
> that specific console. (Ok, I have to admit I don't know if Square/Enix
> has some dealings with Sony. I wouldn't actually be surprised if they did.)
> 

One reason would be the vast differences between each of the consoles of
the past three generations, and the audience for the game. PS1 and N64
were very different in what each console could handle. The PS2, Gamecube
and Xbox were a bit more similar, technology-wise. This generation,
well, you have Cell processors in one, PowerPC and ARM combo in another,
and a PowerPC Xenon in the third. Still, each platform has vastly
different SDK and libraries available; graphic calls alone would
probably require the whole engine to be rewritten.

They pick which console to release on based on what audience already
owns that console. The 360 sells racing and sports games rather well, if
I remember correctly, but also sells rather poorly in Japan. Since they
have to pick between the PS3 and the Wii (or PS2 and Gamecube for last
generation), I guess they go with the better graphics.

Whether S/E has any dealings with Sony, not a clue here. One could look
at the demo of FF7 for the N64, and compare it to the game's FMV that
would never have worked on the cartridge format. Or look at the SNES
CD-drive, that Sony was tasked with making.

Post a reply to this message