Sections

FFXIII gets 360-exclusive UK TV ad

Wednesday, 3rd March 2010 14:02 GMT By Johnny Cullen

ffxiii6

Square Enix has just sent us the UK TV ad for Final Fantasy XIII.

Get it after the break.

The promo shows new segments from the RPG not seen in previous trailers. And Leona Lewis.

The US TV ad was revealed last month, which showed the 360 version only. It’s the same with the UK spot as well.

Final Fantasy XIII releases on PS3 and Xbox 360 in an EU/US sim-ship on Tuesday. Needless to say, we’re pumped.

Breaking news

36 Comments

Sign in to post a comment.

  1. Eregol

    Surely EU competition rules should stop multiformat games only being advertised for one system?

    Maybe have one lead advert with that console’s logo in the centre of the screen, but then have a listing along the bottom screen showcasing other formats?

    It annoys me, all this paying out for exclusive advertising.
    Both Sony and MS are getting right arses for it, and I for one want it to stop.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. bowenFTW

    Sweet, although PS3 is the real place to play FFXIII

    #2 4 years ago
  3. SplatteredHouse

    Note the language used: no specific mention of ‘only’ – that’ll be what keeps them from trouble, I think. Although, I’d still like to find out how it is being overlooked by the competition rules people.

    #3 4 years ago
  4. onyxbox

    @Eregol I’m with you on that… just a bit of print saying “Also available on other formats” or something would be enough.

    #4 4 years ago
  5. V_Ben

    Interestingly, the Bus adverts i’ve seen for the game have both systems on them. And the ps3 logo is bigger!

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Petulant Radish

    Why does exclusive advertising annoy you? It doesn’t effect you in any way so why would something so trivial matter to you enough to be an irritant?

    #6 4 years ago
  7. Michael O’Connor

    “Why does exclusive advertising annoy you? It doesn’t effect you in any way so why would something so trivial matter to you enough to be an irritant?”

    BECAUSE LIFE ISN’T WORTH LIVING IF YOUR CONSOLE OF CHOICE ISN’T BEING RECOGNISED BY OTHERS!

    Obviously.

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Eregol

    Someone has lost control of their caps key.
    It does annoy me, I’m allowed to be annoyed by stuff if I want.
    Considering now has to advertise other web browsers through Windows 7 on installation due to the competition rules I find it baffling how exclusive advertising doesn’t fall under the same jurisdiction.

    It may not affect me personally, but the same seemingly does not apply to magazine advertising, which in fact does include all formats the game is available on.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. alimokrane

    Mayme Microsoft is actually paying for the advertising… Didnt that thought cross your limited fanboy blinded brains ?

    Who cares anyway, everyone knows final fantasy. in fact, this ad makes more sense for the 360 as it’s the first in the series to hit the console.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. conk donk

    Plenty of DVD’s are and have been advertised by shops. Tesco’s don’t feel obliged to advertise their competition while selling a product they’re stocking in so why should Microsoft or anyone else behave any differently with games on their system?

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Psychotext

    Co-operative marketing is smart business, and has been in play for a long, long time.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Kerplunk

    @11 True. But it’s yet not proven relevant in this instance.

    The most sly advertising I ever saw from Microsoft was a print advert for the 360. It showed the console and 6 games clearly presented in front it. 5 were multiplatform and one was an exclusive (probably Halo). The text of the advert read “Play all these games exclusively on the 360″.

    It seems that having the games is not sufficient. Making people think that you’re the only one with those games is what counts.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. G1GAHURTZ

    Considering [Microsoft] now has to advertise other web browsers through Windows 7 on installation due to the competition rules I find it baffling how exclusive advertising doesn’t fall under the same jurisdiction.

    It’s a completely different situation.

    Microsoft own Windows 7 (probably used on around 95% of PC’s) and they own Internet Explorer.

    If Microsoft also owned a console that had around a 95% market share, and they also owned Square Enix, and they forced gamers to only play 1st party games without letting them know that 3rd party games even existed, then you might be able to make the comparison.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. Psychotext

    True. But it’s yet not proven relevant in this instance.

    Define relevant. There are numerous examples of games that sold far better on one platform than another due to co-operative advertising. Party 1 gets their advertising costs reduced massively, party 2 gets increased licensing revenue and possibly console sales.

    Seems pretty relevant. :)

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Erthazus

    It will be interesting to see how Final Fantasy XIII will sell on both platforms and what platform will win in the end.

    I don’t see any Final Fantasy XIII PS3 adverts so MS trying to push it for its platform even if it looks worse then PS3 version.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. The Hindle

    Right guys FF 13, will it sell more on the 360 or Ps3?

    #16 4 years ago
  17. Gekidami

    Already over a million sold in Japan on PS3. Seems pretty obvious that on a global scale the PS3 version will have the most sales.

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Kerplunk

    @14 If would be presumptuous to debate on the basis that Microsoft are co-paying for advertisments until it’s actually known for a fact whether they are or not.

    If they’re not, then the point about co-op marketing in this discussion is irrelevant.

    Past examples of such behaviour are all well and good. But they’re past examples – not this current example. It’s not the same thing and, as such, is not relevant.

    It’s only relevant for those wishing to seek the benefit of the doubt in favour of Microsoft.

    I suspect that unless you work at the relevent department in either Microsoft or Squaresoft, it’s something that won’t be known for certain.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Psychotext

    If would be presumptuous to debate on the basis that Microsoft are co-paying for advertisments until it’s actually known for a fact whether they are or not.

    I’ve never seen an example of this sort of thing which wasn’t. Not to mention the matter of the exclusive bundles, which would no doubt be part of the overall deal.

    I wouldn’t say presumptuous… more common sense (business sense anyway). As for benefit of the doubt, I’m not sure what you mean by that. What benefit?

    #19 4 years ago
  20. Kerplunk

    You’re saying it’s happened this time because, as far as you know, it’s happened before. You’re also implying that if you can’t recall an exception then no such exception exists.

    That’s pretty much a textbook example of presumption, not common sense.

    #20 4 years ago
  21. Psychotext

    No, it’s common sense because you don’t hand another company the exclusive rights to TV advertising and console bundles without anything in return. Well, unless you’re absolutely clueless, but I don’t think that really applies to Square.

    I’m not entirely sure why this matters so much to you… but if it makes you feel better than feel free to believe that there’s absolutely no co-operation (or money changing hands) going on between the companies and Sony just aren’t advertising because they don’t feel the need to. Same goes for the bundles, though that would be strange given they did them for Japan.

    #21 4 years ago
  22. Kerplunk

    No, sorry, it’s preumption. The behaviour is presumptious. The example you’re choosing to cite isn’t the same thing as the presumptious logic you’ve exhibited in your earlier comments. Now you’re mixing and matching as you see fit – playing the semantic game.

    The simplest thing to do is work with what you know for a fact and recognise what things are known and what aren’t. Debating on unknown ‘facts’ boils down to one person’s view over another’s with lots of effort put into a given view being accepted as factual.

    Put simply: if you don’t know for a fact that co-op marking is at play in instance being discussed (not other instances) then don’t debate as though it is. And don’t give credit or allowance where it may not be due.

    And I’m not particularly bothered by it. Just rather tired of opinion being presented as fact.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Syrok

    I certainly wouldn’t aim my advertisements at only half of the potential customers if I didn’t get anything in return for it.

    #23 4 years ago
  24. Psychotext

    Ok Kerplunk, we’ll go with whatever you say… despite the fact it makes absolutely no sense. There’s also no such thing as co-operative marketing unless it’s announced as such first via some sort of press release.

    That’s of course despite the fact that having the game and the console in the same advert, is, by its very definition… co-operative marketing.

    Barking.

    Edit – btw, just in case the roundabout point you’re trying to make is that Microsoft moneyhatted Square… the two aren’t mutually exclusive. That’s likely to be exactly what they did to get the contract.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Kerplunk

    @24 you mention “facts” in your statement again and again but it’s just your view you’re expressing. You seem very fond of presenting your view as factual.

    And then you add a snide comment. Which is quite unnecessary and rather undermines your input in the “Save VG247″ topic elsewhere. No need for that at all.

    I much prefer syrok’s delivery. You both say much the same thing but he doesn’t appear to need to add faux authority to his view.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. Psychotext

    I’m not insulting you Kerplunk. I’m deriding your opinion… and I really wish you would actually get to the point you’re trying to make rather than skirting around it.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. Kerplunk

    Actually, you’re now exhibiting the “stealth trolling” I mentioned in that other topic.

    You’re defending your snide remark and proudly stating how dismissive of another’s opinion you are. Yet you seem determined not to budge an inch on your own opinion or allow it to be challenged to the point of masquerading it as fact instead of opinion.

    I stated my point very succinctly and even repeated it once or twice. You responded to it but chose not to agree with it. You’ve since stretched it out and warped what was being said and, by the looks of things, are now suggesting I’ve not made any point. These are very much the games I’ve seen you complain that others employ in the Save VG247 topic.

    No need for any drop in civility or to express pride in doing so.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. Patrick Garratt

    *sigh*

    #28 4 years ago
  29. Syrok

    :)

    #29 4 years ago
  30. Psychotext

    Lets take it basics shall we? You state that what we see here is not co-operative advertising / marketing (unless I’ve completely misread your argument). I state that it is, right down to the definition of the term:

    Agreement between two or more marketers with complementary products (such as cosmetics and toiletries) or different seasonal sales cycles (such as raincoats and winter coats) to promote or sell each other’s products with their own. Also called cooperative marketing or co-marketing.

    The specifics of the deal? Not a clue… but that there’s some sort of a deal in place? Without question in my opinion. (Though why I have to state it’s my opinion is beyond me, everything here is opinion)

    Unless you were trying to make a different point? In which case, I apologise.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. G1GAHURTZ

    I feel like we’ve been here before.

    #31 4 years ago
  32. Kerplunk

    @30 I’ve repeatedly made a completely different point than the ones you’ve chosen to address.

    Let’s just agree to disagree on whatever it was we thought the other one was saying.

    #32 4 years ago
  33. Syrok

    Yes, lets.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. G1GAHURTZ

    Phil admits defeat.

    #34 4 years ago
  35. Psychotext

    @Syrok: Quite.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. wohdin

    I’m still amazed that people consider the fact that the 360 version is getting advertised as important in any way. Certainly everyone who gives half a damn about FF knows that it’s going to be available for the PS3 – the series has been exclusive for, what, over a decade now? But you’d be surprised how many people still are clueless that there is even a 360 version slated to be available. Anyone who has been a fan of FF for any significant amount of time probably already owns a PS3 and has had their copy preordered for the past three years, so the point that the 360 version is getting “more spotlight” is moot.

    #36 4 years ago