While Bomb is right about it not being definite, this is just how Namco Bandai are with their rpg's. I can't say I understand them, but this isn't the first time simmilar things have happened. As mentioned above, Tales of Symphonia. And some of their games don't make it overseas at all such as Tales of Destiny 2 (PS2).

Yeah you're right. I just hope to God that other Japanese game companies don't follow suit - you know release the Western versions of the RPGs on the 360 and keep the PS3 ports in Japan.

The PS3 is so far behind with RPGs now it's getting worrying and that doesn't look like it's going to improve much by the end of the year. Even the PS2 had 20 plus RPGs by it's second year didn't it? And the PS3 has been out a year and half. I'll be gutted if we don't start seeing some announcements soon.

Yeah or worse. Don't release them outside of Japan at all. To me, Namco Bandai and their Tales studios are among the least reliable rpg developers in the business, speaking from a non Japanese gamers point of view.


Yeah I agree, and that's why I asked Lunar Master if his wishes for Valkyria Chronicles going multi platform were not a bit selfish if you look at the situation. He said "The PS3 has no need to worry about RPGs." but I can't see that right now. Disgaea 3 is about to be released outside of Japan. But besides that and the action rpg Folklore, PS3 doesn't have any rpg's as far as I know besides Enchanted Arms which is a 360 port and Oblivion which is a western rpg and also a port.

But yeah, let's wish for PS3's only big rpg title right now to be ported over to 360. Because it's more fair that way.
I don't have any problems with people rooting for games to come to their favorite console, but that's a selfish wish the way things are now.

Yeah, Namco have also managed to be the first developer to make Europe wait longer than expected(more than a month) on the 360 for TOV which is really disappointing.



I know what you mean. I'd personally rather see both the 360 and PS3 get their own exclusives it makes owning them both seem more justified. Still, there's White Knight Story by Level 5 who in my opinion are one of the most talented RPG developers today(Jean D'Arc in the post ) so there's always that to look forward to. This gen is definitely a complicated one in regard to our favourite genre.

Why does it matter to you if a game multi-console or exclusive? Isn't just as selfish to want a game become a exclusive to a particular console? Only people with the console that the game exclusive to can play the game, while the other people can't play. I never understood why people are for exclusive games for a particular console.

PS3 is and will get RPG's, the main problem would be whether developers decide to let a company publish the title for a Europe or U.S. release or the company publish and releases their title here. This is where I agree with Athrun that Namco-Bandai been quite poor and giving it's fans game. No release of ToD 2, ToR, ToS PS2 and ToD PS2. By their reasoning, since they released ToE U.S before, let's not release again in U.S. and release in Europe only even though it's translated in complete English. Don't forget all the ports of Tales game that never reached the U.S. either. NIS on the other hand releases a majority of their titles outside of Japan while Namco Bandai doesn't.

Well because things are the way they are, and consoles do have their exclusives. Whether we like it or not. And since things are this way, you'd want (at the very least) for both consoles to have an equal amount of exclusives, if you were to remain fair. When a console has few exclusives, and someone wishes for even those to go multi platform, then that's a selfish wish. Nothing unusual or wrong, but still selfish.

US exclusives:

X360: Eternal Sonata, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect etc.

PS3: Nothing

I'm aware of that. But, as fans of video games or specific game genre, why would you be against multi-platform releases? You receive the game if you own one of the consoles. In the end, isn't that all that should matter to you? From Sony corporation's point of view, I can see why they desire exclusive rights to increase their sellers, but as a consumer, why should it matter if a game goes multi-platform? As a consumer, it should bother you when game developer and console developers agree to make a certain game exclusive, leaving you without the game if you don't own the console.

I don't mind how many exclusive a certain console has or will have. Why should I as a consumer?

Selfish? X-Box 360 owners desire Valkyrie Chronicles to go multi-platform is consider selfish, because they want to play the game, too, just like PS3 owners will have the opportunity to play the title? In vice versa, if Tales of Vesperia goes multi-platform and Sony owners wish for that, is that consider selfish? What I consider selfish is people desiring a certain game to remain exclusive excluding other people who don't own that system from playing that game. How is that not selfish?

Most people did not mind the majority of exclusive RPG's being released on the PS2 in the last console generation, but this generation, there should be balance since X-Box 360 receiving the majority of exclusive currently?

It goes back to how the market works. They do have console exclusives, and because of that it not only affects the sales and appeal of a console, but also affects future rpg release for the system.
The more rpg fans that own the system, the more it will be favored by companies, especially if they are persuaded with some money.

Valkyria Chronicles being multi-platform won't change that X360 has several rpg exclusives already. Continue this trend enough and as a result PS3 has nothing over X360, and it will contnue to go down that path, and X360 is the favored rpg console, and we'll keep seeing X360 exclusives rather than multi platform releases.


You should. Look at the original Xbox. The owners of that console were royaly screwed when it comes to rpgs. Because Sony got so many exclusives, it became more and more the rpg console for every month that passed. Until one day, the thought of an rpg being released for the Xbox owners was a joke.


Of course it's selfish. Why wouldn't it be?
People are aware of what exclusives means to a console. Taking away more from a console that already has few is a selfish thought.


Of course. I said it's nothing unusual, or wrong. But still a selfish wish. But on the other hand it wouldn't be as unfair for a X360 rpg going multi console as it is now than it is for the very few existing PS3 exclusives to do so.


It is, but at the same time it's more fair for an underdog to get more exclusives, and even the gap to the other console. The consoles already have their exclusives. And the only way to close that gap is for the other console to get its own share of exclusive titles. That way both consoles are equally appealing in that aspect, and after that in theory every title might as well be a multi console release without affecting that balance.


I don't have a problem with multi console releases, as long as it's in a fair ratio. As it stands now rpg wise, it's not, and it's in favor of Xbox 360. Until that gap is closed. And it never will be unless PS3 gets exclusives of it's own.

All consoles sharing the same games? That's fine. One console having many exclusives, and the other doesn't? That's not very fair, like with the original Xbox. No one can claim that it was treated fairly.

I'm aware of that, but , the desire to keep a certain game exclusive from a fan just to help a certain console increase it's chances of future RPG releases. Isn't that in itself a selfish desire to see the console that fan currently the owner of receive more RPG's while keeping the game exclusive taking the chance away from other people with other consoles from playing that particular game?

As a video game fan, I own X-Box 360 and I desire the game to become multi-platform. I just want to play that game. I get to play that game while PS3 owners get to play that game, too. Again, I don't see how this is selfish. That's the point I'm trying to make.


Yes? What about that?


Having the feeling to keep titles to the console you own is not the same?

I can agree that's it unfair as PS3 owner that a title that's exclusive to that system being made multi-platform, because of the reasons you stated in the second paragraph of your post. What I don't agree with is calling people who wish to play a game that's currently exclusive selfish. You can call the game developer selfish for keeping a game exclusive or not exclusive, but I do see why a person that just wishes to play that particular game as a selfish person for having those desires.


I agree, but again, if you as a Sony owner desire Tales of Vesperia to be released on the PS3, too. I don't see it as selfish, but for example, you wished Tales of Vesperia was exclusive to PS3 and not the X-Box 360, then I would see that as a selfish wish. You just wish to play the game. I see the game developer flopping on exclusive rights as being selfish as to cash in, if the game went multi-platform, it should have been that from the start or making a certain game exclusive. That in itself is self, but only the game developers' company.


I never argue the fairness factor since I'm in agreement with you on that subject. It's just seems odd to call one side selfish while desiring a game to remain exclusive is the same. Is that not hypocritical? If you said V.C. being released as multi-platform title as unfair, then sure, I agree, but calling one side selfish while your own selfish doesn't seem right. No matter if it's fair or not.

What would be fair to us as consumers is one console and not worrying about exclusive rights ever and having the option to play which ever game is released, but this is the real world and that's will never happen.


Never thought you did. If I gave you that impression, that wasn't my intention.

That happen with PS2, but again, people did not seem to have a problem with that back then.

Edit - Decide to split these post from the E.S. topic since I started discussing exclusive rights on games in general in that topic.

Yeah but it's also not just about the game itself, but it is decisive for the fate of future titles as well. In a way that you want to even out the balance between the two consoles, and a more fair result than the opposite. lol Kind of like Robin Hood.
Even if we're all fans of rpg and want to play them, the imbalance in exclusives also dictate how many of those games we will miss in the future.

I guess "unfair" would have been a better choice of words.

You can make Valkyria Chronicles multi platform now, and every other PS3 exclusive. But then things will never change. I guess it has to start somewhere, and it's usually one game at a time.

Xbox 360 has done that in regards of pretty much every genre this generation. It's a lot more equal this time. Getting Devil May Cry 4 and Resident Evil 5 are good examples of that. And they did that by starting out with some exclusives of their own such as Dead Rising.


Well it's about your desire to play the game compared to the negative effect that has on the other console.
If PS3 don't get any exclusives of their own, X360 will always have more and PS3 has less.


Xbox owners that were rpg fans were treated unfairly.
Playstation 2 had more rpg exclusives (that's an understatement) and that trend continued to grow. Not just rpg's, but many other genres. And the fact that Xbox got ports of PS2 games didn't really help when PS2 had everything Xbox had, plus more.


Of course, but in that case it's more of a wish that strives towards making things even and more fair. As long as X360 keeps having a 5 to 1 ratio of rpg exclusives, it won't be. And PS3 owners miss out on a lot more rpgs than X360 owners do.


Lol, we're all selfish. I guess what I meant was selfish and unfair.
"Selfishness denotes the precedence given in thought or deed to the self, i.e., self interest or self concern. It is the act of placing one's own needs or desires above the needs or desires of others."

In Xbox360's current situation, taking away the few exclusives that exist for PS3 is a selfish and unfair though. Because PS3 needs to catch up. When it does, then every title can be multi platform and no one should really care.


But as long as one console has an exclusive lead such as this, we will keep seeing exclusives (what you thought to be unfair) announced for it.
The only way to break that trend if for the other console to get it's own exclusives until it catches up. Whatever that is, it's still a strive for a more equal situation.


Yeah, I guess selfish and unfair would be a more suitable term since any self serving desire is selfish. lol


Well that's the human nature of selfishness and/or jealousy.

I think it is a good idea to have exclusives and not selfish at all. Exclusives makes a console diffirent from other consoles. What is the point in all consoles being the same? If each console has their own exlsuive games, they have their own uniqueness, something that makes a console more interesting than others.

Besides, it is funny how you two are only talking about the 360 and PS3 and totally ignoring the Wii. If we're going to be technical here, all the games on the Wii are exclusive, because they only work on the Wii.
Why is that alright then? If you're so against exclusives and finding it selfish, how come you only talk about the PS3 and 360 and not the Wii?

Well the Wii is a bit different since most of those games don't even work on PS3/X360, so it's hard to compare those games. It feels like a different type of system.

The reason I said it would be cool if VC went multiplatform is because it was originally planned as a 360 game and was shifted to a PS3 exclusive. I think it might still go multiplatform, but I don't think the game has been doing to great in Japan. Hopefully it does better when it becomes international since it actually looks like a cool game.

As for the Wii. The only games that really get people's attention are the games that Nintendo makes, and I doubt anything they make will leave their platform(that is unless they go the way of Sega). All the other exclusives that people are arguing about are from third parties (such as MGS4, GeOW, Final Fantasy) so I can see those games going multiplatform.

So, we're complaining about the exlusivity of games, but we're ignoring the Wii, because it isn't like the PS3 and 360?
Wow, that does make sense. I know the games do not work on other consoles, but to ignore it and instead make a whole debate about exclusive games does not really make sense. The Wii is a console after all, gimmicky but a console.

For clarification purposes I assume that the said exclusivity that is currently being discussed here relates to third party titles, as what LM mentioned, and not first party titles?

Yeah, Valkyria Chronicles, made by Sega.


Well Lunar Master and Sonic bring up a good point. The titles on Wii that most peopel are interested in are mainly Nintendo's own. Either first party titles or second party titles. And it's pretty obvious that their only interest is to benifit their own companies success. If we sort out all of those we're not left with too many interesting third party titles. And when we do find one, they're usually based on the wiimote technology, such as Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles for example. And I don't see how those would work well on PS3 or X360.

Oh I agree, the first party games are huge on the Wii and the third party games leave some things to desire and I agree that the Wii games could not work on the 360 and PS3, due to their gimmicky nature.
This is also my explanation, as to why the Wii is good for now, but will run out in the end, as the gimmick is already dropping and games are already repeating itself. Most importantly, the Wii is missing out on multi-platform games, as the developers would have to redesign many aspects of the game, most importantly graphics and gameplay.
I mean, the best example I can give now is: Soul Calibur IV.

Anyway, all I was trying to say here was, that if any console should be blamed for exclusive games, it should be the Wii, as almost all the games, if not all, are exlusive.
Now, personally, I think this is for the best, as the games only work on the Wii and their audience and games such as Ninjabread Man (whatever it is called) and Cooking Mama really don't work.

As I said earlier, I am for exclusive games, as that is what differentiate the consoles, for the better or the worst. Each thing has to have something unique. If everyone in the world would dress the same way, it would get boring as well. You can look at this the same way with consoles. If all consoles are unique to each other, what do you choose? Probably the cheapest, which would indicate in the drop of prices, to match the demand and the loss of money and in the long run even the quality of games, as developers can no longer affort making games, unless we go back to the Asteroid and Pong days =P.
I know it sounds pretty dramatic, but this is an effect that could result from the non-exclusivity.

Same could be said about only being concern about the positive effect it will have the console you own?

In short, it's unfair and selfish to desire a title to go multi-platform, but it's selfish to keep a console game exclusive, too, but fair since that console must keep it's exclusive to help it's console's appeal.


It's selfish if you desire a game to remain exclusive depriving owners of other consoles the chance to play and in the train of thought "Want it? Buy the system like me.". Not sure how you concluded it wasn't it. I never argue the fact it's wrong or unfair. The reason you provided only gave reason to exclusivity, which all people were aware of, at least I hope they were.


Wii games are desired for the Wii and console developer develop titles for their system as well. No Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo title should appear on another system since it's that console's developer titles. It's their property, they can be selfish with it. They can also be selfish with exclusive titles. Again, the issue of right or wrong was never brought up. Just the selfish feeling factor.

360 and PS3 were mainly discussed since the debate revolved around V.C. Also, most games develop for these system can not be handle by the Wii. Like games develop by the Wii can't be handle on PS3 or X-Box 360 due to motion sensor.

Again, certain Wii titles can go to PS3 or X-Box 360, but not the other way around.

It's a console, not a gimmick.


Yeah.


Calling it a gimmick instead of motion sensor?

The Wii titles are repeating? Because that's how you feel?

Wii got exclusive titles of it's own, like Tales of Symphonia. It's got it's share of titles that just interest you. Doesn't mean they're not worth the time to play.

Sony and Microsoft don't have games of their own, but Nintendo does, so even missing out on multi-platform titles, the Wii carries on with it's first party titles. Is that bad? Sony and Microsoft are mainly carried by their third party support while Wii carried by their first party support. By miss out on titles, you mean miss out on titles you don't like. I can admit I'm not a fan of Nintendo Wii titles, but not going to use my own personal taste to determine if a console appeal to people. The console appeal to me? Sure, that will determine, but in general? No.


You blame games being develop for Nintendo's motion sensor game style for exclusivity? Titles that won't work on PS3 or 360 due to nature of game style? While in vice versa, 360 and PS3 games can not work on the Wii. You blame the Wii while the same principle is applied vice versa with 360 and PS3? Do you even realize the hypocrisy in that statement?

The thing with exclusive games is, it can make a console desirable. It can make the diffirence between not wanting to buy and want to buy. Sure, I'd like to see certain games exclusive, not because I am selfish, but because I think it is a better option in general. Of course, I will be missing out on games myself, but I can live with that. If I really need to play a game on a console I do not own, I have friends who have it, so it is not a big of a deal.



First, I wasn't talking about first party games, I was talking about third party games. Most, if not all third party games are exclusive to the Wii, due to their gimmicky nature and most importantly gameplay.



Motion sensor is a gimmick. Gimmick=gadget. The stands out, due to its unusual style of gameplay, thus gimmick.



It is, because that is how it is. Besides, most third party games are half games anyway, or do you count Cooking Mama is a full game.



While ToS is a good exclusive, I am not so sure about Cooking Mama, or Escape from Bug Island.



That is not what I was saying. This topic was about exlusives and it being selfish, or not. Now, the whole conversation simply focused on the X360 and the PS3 and not the Wii. The Wii has more exclusives than the two consoles combined, so why wasn't it mentioned before?

And yes, the gimmick nature of the Wii cancels Wii designed games to work the same way as it does on the Wii. I know there are several games released on all consoles, but the number is pretty low.
Also, can you explain to me why Soul Calibur IV is not getting a Wii release then?

Well Wii got the exclusive Soulcalibur Legends.

I know they have, but that was not my question.

This has been going on since Nintendo started the "Only for" thing back during the SNES days. Nobody really complained because SEGA had a tremendous lineup of a good games for the Saturn/Genesis. So you can buy either and miss out on very little, plus they were inexpensive. It's a bit different now in this era. Consoles cost close to car notes and games rival electric bills. Who really wants to fork out a fortune for more than one console just to experience a few games? It's forcing people to buy a console they don't care about.

What is Cooking Mama a half game? What is a half game?

That is how it is? You left out the word "you". Sounds like you stating a fact instead of an opinion.


Because a majority of Wii titles are designed for that system specifically for it's motion sensor abilities? Why bring the system up when nearly every title on 360 or PS3 can't import to the Wii and vice versa.


Can the Wii even handle Soul Calibur without being down graded by a large margin?


Weren't games and system relatively expensive for the time back then?


More like forcing people to buy a console to play games they want to play since they're exclusive to that specific system. If the console has enough games on it, you should care about the console regardless of it's name.

Eva, you and i are on the same page.

No, it is more like a mini-game. Seriously, if you consider Cooking Mama to be a full game, such as for example games such as Twilight of the Princes, than something is wrong with you.

I'm also pretty sure that I share this opinion with many many gamers. Mostly people that do not have a Wii yet, due to reasons I pointed out earlier.



You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. Nintendo was the only one that made a diffirent step. So why should two other companies be blamed for the exclusivity of the games on the Wii when it was Ninty's own choice to take a diffirent path.
I am not saying whether they should, or shouldn't have made that step, but it was Ninty's own decision and not Sony's or Ms'. The Wii games do not work on the Wii, because Ninty made the step to go diffirent, most highly rated PS3/360 games do not work on the Wii, because Ninty went diffirent.
Sony and MS started where they finished with the previous console, NInty was the one that took a complete diffirent route.



Exactly and this will be the reason that the Wii will miss out on many other multiplatform games. Hence my theory that the Wii will run out in the long run.
Don't get me wrong, the Wii is doing fantastic at the moment, but when I think about the Wii gonna miss out on various multiplatform games, such as Soul Calibur (which had appeared on the NGC) and GTA, cannot believe that the Wii is gonna make it all the way through the end. This is just my personal thought though.