Square-Enix, still the loyal PlayStation enthusiasts
by Nick Doerr 
{ Feb 12th 2007 at 3:30PM }
Yoichi Wada put on his "President of Square-Enix" hat and recently talked about the future of the PlayStation 3 and, uh, Dragon Quest. Here's what's worth gleaning:
- Even though Dragon Quest IX is being developed for and released on the Nintendo DS, Wada claims that Square-Enix is not changing its development strategy. The DQ titles aren't moving permanently to the handhelds.
- Wada follows that with: "Following portable machines, we see the market for the PlayStation 3 and other next generation consoles taking off, so we will develop for that."
- Wada feels that the PlayStation 3 will take off once HD-TV's are in place in most homes. "We have expectations from the PS3. However, it's still early. For us to do business [on the platform], it will take a bit more time...Once the television environment is in place, at last the true game business will form. I see the PS3 market taking off starting around 2008."
- Wada even takes a shot at us bloggers, who seem to fully encompass the terms "impatience" and "rumor hunting mercenary flamebait revolution-inciting bastards"... or something. "Some journalists don't understand that there's a difference in the amount of time hardware takes to spread and have taken the tone of 'the world of high vision, high quality gaming has come to an end.' However, once you see the world of high vision, there's no going back." That's true. I can't play on my other, non-HD televisions anymore.
Wada concludes with saying that casual gamers will snag up the Wii, DS, and PSP. Those who want a "fuller experience" will seek out the PlayStation 3 and XBox 360. All we can say is: indeed. Personally, I don't mind waiting until 2008. I've a huge backlog of games to get through anyway.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
bootsielon @ Feb 12th 2007 3:53PM
Correction, Wada-San. There is virtually no way you can get a "Full" experience on Xbox 360. No Blu-ray and no HDD out of the box hinder its hardware potential. Xbox 360 is in the middle of Wii and PS3. Wii will be for casuals, families, old people and kids; Xbox 360 will be mainly for teenagers and a few hardcore gamers (especially hardcore FPS fans); and PS3 will be for adults that seek the highest quality of entertainment, hardcore gamers, casuals, and families.
Andrew Baisden @ Feb 12th 2007 4:34PM
also the PS3 is for all those who want next gen and all of their ps1 and especially PS2 games
Dolla Dolla @ Feb 12th 2007 4:38PM
At the current price point, PS3 does not appeal to casuals. This is Sony's biggest stepping stone. Wada-San is correct. Yes, you can get the full experience with an Xbox 360. What does the PS3 have that the Xbox 360 can't have? You can't say a high definition drive because you CAN add it. You can't say WiFi, because you CAN add it. You can't say 1080p, because the Xbox 360 DOES output 1080p, and a couple new games will be taking advantage of that.
Out of the box, yes the 360 is the middle ground, which is why it is noticeably cheaper. But it can be upgraded.
Wada-San hit the nail on the head. In 2008, when they drop the big name franchises coupled WITH a price drop, then the PS3 will be the machine to have. Right now ... not so much.
Dasgooch @ Feb 12th 2007 5:26PM
I know this is a tough one for some of you to believe but Blu-Ray is NOT needed for "Next Gen" systems. If you honestly believe this, what "Full" experiance are X360 owners missing out on? Also give the no HDD core argument a rest because its tired and doesn't really affect anything. Last time I checked Gears of War looks the same on a Core or a Premium 360.
jt @ Feb 12th 2007 5:03PM
HAHA @ post 1
The 360 is for the hardcore gamer since it has an advantage in graphics while it has basicaly the same games but more geared towards the hardcore. You Sony fans need to go back to the gameplay>graphics argument again like last gen. since you believed the hype. Gameplay+Graphics= the better experience. Plus, if you are a 360 owner you can pay the extra $200 and watch a new format of movies. But if you dont want to and just want to watch upconverted DVDs since thats what most people will do, you can do that as well. Same cannot be said about the PS3.
Azorean @ Feb 12th 2007 5:35PM
#1 correction theres no way to get a "full" HD experiance from the PS3 out of the box because it dosesn't come with the proper cables to display my games or movies in HD! WOW you Sony fanboys need to wake up from this fantasyland you all live in! Can't get a full experiance out of the box with a 360 because it doesn't come with Blu-Ray? are you serious? How does Blu-Ray make it a "full" experiance anyway oh and the 360 does come with an HDD out of the box(premium 360) and the ability to play games in HD can't say the same about either version of the PS3!
Hammer @ Feb 12th 2007 6:38PM
Quote: "impatience" and "rumor hunting mercenary flamebait revolution-inciting bastards"
Heh heh. As a blogger, I'd say that was true. Devs must have had a hell of an easier time of it when gamers had to rely on the print medium for new ;)
Hell hath no fury like the wrath of a disgruntled blogger ;)
Killer @ Feb 12th 2007 7:25PM
One thing here though. When he says, "Once the television environment is in place, at last the true game business will form. I see the PS3 market taking off starting around 2008." I don't know about you, but if I had the cash I would buy the ps3 even if I didn't have an Hd set yet. I mean if that's his argument that the ps3 is being held back because of the lack of hdtv's in homes, that not a really good argument. I mean if I didn't have a hdtv for the ps3 (or wanted it) I would still buy it even if i didn't have a hdtv. It's about the console, if the grapghics don't look good in standard (which I believe that it does look good) then a tv is stopping people from buying it. It's the price tag like someone said before me. That's the sales problem. Hell I have a 360 and I have played gears on hd and sd and i can tell you, the hd does look better, but if you look at the sd it's a hell of alot better then last gen. Isn't that what next-gen is really about? Not Hd formats for movies, not online services, not delivering movies, tv shows,(and soon music) to people through the internet. It's the look of the games! It's just the same nice gameplay but the graphics make the game even more enjoyable. So let's all agree last gen sucks compared to what we have before us. ps3,360 and wii the next gen gaming that will bring and even better Next-Next Gen.
No matter what fanboy you are, let it be sony, microsoft, nintendo, or a mix. It's just great having next-gen gaming. So stop @#$$%ing about what is better. We all win people!
The only thing we don't win is when companies push things on us. Which is really ironic to what my last comment was....lol
bmac @ Feb 12th 2007 9:04PM
I know plenty of people that bought hd-tv sets, enjoyed the hd programming for a few weeks, and then immediately started looking into other ways to take advantage of their new set. First things that come to mind; PS3 and 360. Of course, I steer as many as I can in the Sony direction...
bootsielon @ Feb 13th 2007 12:37AM
Dolla Dolla didn't get the point. Xbox 360 won't use HD-DVD for games. Of course it's not needed, otherwise NES, SNES, etcetera wouldn't have existed. But it definitely gives a better experience. Not only is a multiple disc solution just as expensive for producing the game, but for games that are all the time streaming information from the disc to the RAM, you can't use multiple discs.
GTA can't use multiple discs, neither crackdown, nor saints row. Of course, those are on DVDs, but that's why they are LIMITED. Don't worry though, since the exclusive games are the ones that actually matter (unlike GTA and Saints Row), games like The Getaway and L.A. Noire will take advantage of the HDD and the storage space that Blu-ray offers. Too bad Xbox 360 didn't come with an HDD out of EVERY BOX, and a much bigger one, that way the multiple disc solution could have worked for installing a game that was even bigger than a dual-layered Blu-ray, and benefited games such as crackdown, Dead or Alive (which got some cut-scenes deleted due to lack of space), and so on. I guess Microsoft is too cheap to satisfy their fans.
No matter how many compression methods Microsoft finds, it will always hinder Xbox 360s potential because decompression takes CPU power. There is always more storage on blu-ray so you can put more content on it. You can't create content procedurally everytime, or even if sometimes you could, that CPU power could be used elsewhere. Basically, PS3 doesn't have to decompress as much as 360 does, and doesn't have to render all or most content procedurally, taking advantage of the cell on other things; furthermore, forget about HD-cutscenes on 360 (just as you've done with Dead or Alive), and 7.1 audio.
Even if Xbox 360 had a better GPU (marginally), it ends up being wasted by being on an incomplete machine.
Jt,
Jt, you think 360 has better graphics? Wow, I lol'd. Even if I never mentioned graphics, nor do I care for the marginal difference the PS3 might have over 360 (because PS3's power resides in the combination of its CPU, GPU, HDD and Blu-ray, unlike 360 which can only rely on its (inferior) CPU and GPU), let's see what we know: Most developers have said that the PS3 has way more potential (EA, Sega, Ubisoft, Squeenix, Konami, Epic); don't ask me for sources, if you are actually up to date, you'd known this since almost a year ago.
Carmack admitted the PS3 has more raw power in the end. Kojima said the perfect machine is "A PS3 with Wii controls" (no 360 there, boy). Factor 5 chose PS3 because it was more powerful than Xbox 360. And you are going to tell us that you are better than all those opinions combined to say 360 has better output? Are you gonna try to convince us now that you're not pathetic or what?
You know what the best part is though? You came here to convince yourself that buying a 360 was the better choice. I have all 3, and I know what I got with each... frankly I don't give a damn which has more power, and if I had gotten just one, I'd be happy with it. That doesn't mean I don't know what these machines are capable of, I like knowing.
You seem to be insecure enough about your purchase to come to a PS3 site for flaming and saying to yourself that your purchase was better. And by the way, I never mentioned graphics on my first post. And even if 360 had more power on their GPU, as I said above, the machine is limited with its lack of HDD and HD-DVD/Blu-ray out of the box. DEVELOPERS WON'T USE THOSE even if you can upgrade. Go have fun with your only console, boy.
bootsielon @ Feb 13th 2007 12:43AM
And by the way, if you think storage space is unnecessary, ask the gamecube, the dreamcast and the N64 why PS1, PS2 and even Xbox had superior experiences (and install bases) to their counter-parts, despite higher launch prices.
I'm not saying it's the only factor, I'm saying it's good and it's been good and it will keep being good to have that much space. After all, we're not streaming everything from the net at this point, and HDDs are too expensive (am I right, Microsoft?).
Markusdragon @ Feb 13th 2007 4:39AM
ask the gamecube, the dreamcast and the N64 why PS1, PS2 and even Xbox had superior experiences (and install bases) to their counter-parts, despite higher launch prices.
Okay, normally I stay silent on bastions of fanboyism like this, but no-one, and I mean NO-ONE disses the dreamcast. Shenmue is far deeper and immersive than the majority of Playstation 2 games (oh look, a sandbox game with multiple discs!) and had it not been for the wreckage that was the Sega Saturn and Sega's inability to regenerate third party support, along with the sony hype machine (Sony have since lost their advertising prowess, unfortanatly), the Dreamcast could easily have been third, perhaps second place last generation.
Besides, there's no correalation between experience and disk space. Have you people never heard of .kkrieger?
Knight Marquise @ Feb 13th 2007 12:23PM
bootsielon~
I know you claim you have all 3, and I don't doubt it, but honestly, coming from someone who always gets every console, your post appears to hide a PS3 fanboy in all it's glory. Have you even read what you wrote? Again, for the record, I always buy every console, of every generation. I haven't, thus far however, been able to find or procure a Wii.
My Gawd, where do I even begin. For example, personally I believe every console should have an HDD. I personally feel having a system w/o an HDD was a stupid move on MS's part. To me, it was a step backwords from where they led with the Xbox. The sony fanboys, as of last gen, did not. What a change in the tune, a disingenius change. However, Sony did get this right with the PS3. To me, a console in this day and age, without a standard HDD, limits devs, and will hurt overall game performance.
No, HD-DVD/BD will not add to game play value, in my opinion. You site Oblivion. If a game, that huge, needed more storage medium, why does my PS3 version not take advantage of that? Very few games will actually need more space then provided by a standard dvd this gen. Those that do will most likely be because of FMV, ran outside of the games graphic engine, in otherwords, not rendered in real time. This takes massive amounts of storage.
However much it may pain you to accept this, the 360 does have the better GPU and nearly 5X the bandwidth. I'll use the same links as yours: anyone who's honest with themselves, and has kept up on this, knows.
Azorean @ Feb 13th 2007 1:39PM
Adding to Knight Marquise response to bootsielon! Wasn't it Carmack that said that Sony should cancel the PS3 even at this late stage and apologize to it's fanbase and start over? Wow, your fanboy visions have blinded you to reality like it has every Sony Exec and has made you come out a spew more garbage that won't make a difference in this console war! Do you fanboys think that third party devs are going to make a multiplatform game different on the 360 then the PS3 because the PS3 has Blu-Ray disks? That won't happen third party devs are going to make one game and port it like they have always done because it would cost to much money to make 2 or 3 versions(PS3,360 & Wii) of the same game so unless it's a first party game don't expect to get any advantage except for maybe a cutscene or two on the PS3 because of BD.
SKI @ Feb 13th 2007 3:22PM
You should never buy for potential, buy for what you will get now.
bootsielon @ Feb 15th 2007 8:04PM
Markus Dragon:
No correlation between storage and experience?
PS1 > N64
PS2 > GC > DC
Xbox > GC > DC
The latest best selling consoles had the most storage and won. I'm not saying it is the only factor, but you can definitely see a correlation. Besides, if it really wasn't about storage, then why the hell did nintendo not use CDs for the cube instead of mini-dvds? Why did Microsoft and Sony equip their last consoles with DVD? Why doesn't microsoft just use CD for Xbox 360? I mean, it doesn't really matter, does it? Why do game consoles come now with storage devices? By the way, just in case nobody noticed (you never know), these are all rhetorical questions.
I do know the game .kkrieger, but first of all that is more of an academic game rather than an actual product; it would be a logistical nightmare to actually make all games be entirely dependent on procedural algorithms. Also, the console's processing power would be wasted in decompression and procedural generation. That's why they keep using media that can handle plenty of storage. You say games can actually use multiple discs? Oh yeah! SOME can, for example:
Blue Dragon, all Final Fantasies before FFX, Resident Evil 2.
Why did this games were able to do so? Because they were linear. You weren't going back and forth or you didn't need all the information of the game in a small period of time. In fact, developers would have benefited from putting them on a single disc anyway (a DVD), since they wouldn't have had to repeat information on the discs, the usability of the game is a little higher (no need to switch discs), AND no need to plan how all the data should be rearranged. Game Packages are cheaper, and game testing is a nightmare when there are multiple discs (compared to the single disc solution.
Anyway, on the other hand, we have the following games would be impossible to make in a multiple disc solution:
Final Fantasy X: You can roam through the entire world in real-time. Were this game on multiple discs, it would be unusable since every time you have to go back to one place, you'd have to insert another disc.
Games like these exclusive for PS3: FFXIII, FFVersusXIII, White Knight Story. Unless they are linear, but the last final fantasy games haven't been like that. White Knight Story also seems to be needing to be in just one disc, and why limit your game to just 8.5 GB especially if it's going to be in high def, and you wanna take advantage of all the features of your console?
GTA: The same problem. You can't ask the player to switch discs every time he wants to go to another city. Same thing would apply to Saint's Row and Crackdown.
Exclusive to PS3: The Getaway 3 (which seems to pack a lot of content needed to be rendered without pauses to change discs), L.A. Noire.
Fighting games: So, do you divide characters between disc 1 or 2? Do you delete content? Do you not add cut-scenes for each characters ending? Definitely not (well, on Dead or Alive 4 they already did; what a shame. For gamers that only have a 360, that is, lol).
Exclusive games for PS3 like these: Tekken 6. Tekken always includes cut-scenes for characters.
Racing games: Same problem as above. Different cars on different discs? Tracks? Levels? Cut-scenes? No, everything needs to be there.
Exclusive: Formula 1, Motorstorm, Gran Turismo 5.
If Oblivion was a PS3 exclusive, they could have made the game larger... and have CGI cut-scenes; they can't on 360 since this game needs to be on a single disc.
I know you're gonna say "Cut-scenes don't matter", but that's subjective. A lot of people like them. Some things just can't be done on PS3 and 360 hardware, since they are limited like any machine. And since it is a subjective matter, you try to actually include everyone (that is, people that don't like cut-scenes aren't excluded on PS3, unlike 360 which will probably end up excluding most CGI). PS3 is way more inclusive than Xbox 360 in that matter.
Whatever argument you have against disc storage size is worthless when Epic, Ubisoft, EA, Square-Enix, Konami, The Darkness developers, Sega and Tecmo actually love the fact that PS3 uses Blu-ray. I love how people easily forget about that, but it doesn't matter; I'd cite my sources, but that came out more than a year ago, and frankly I don't care if you don't believe me; proof is in the pudding in the end. Developer's opinions on games hardware are way more important that whatever a bunch of 360 fanboys think.
Storage is good for more content, improving on logistics and testing, for usabulity, and for taking more advantage of the platform you are developing for. It's that simple.
To the guy that said that 360 has a better GPU: PS3 has a much better CPU, and the CPU can also do graphics, so whatever minimal advantage the GPU has is overcompensated by the cell (according to developers, which is what matters, not according to you). That's assuming the 360 had a next-gen drive and an HDD, but since it doesn't, developers can't rely on that, so they'll have to compress the info, and they'll be unable to cache on the HDD, limiting the 360 even more.
SKI:
There isn't just potential. The games are there, and there will be more coming. There are actually games announced, not "just potential". There is potential; games too.