Sections

Wada: Microsoft “asked us” to do FFXIII for 360

Wednesday, 10th March 2010 14:40 GMT By Johnny Cullen

Square Enix president Yoichi Wada has revealed that Final Fantasy XIII went to Xbox 360 because Microsoft “asked us” to develop a title in the series for the console.

Speaking with Siliconera, he said the install base as it was at the time for 360 was just too good to pass up on to not get the game on the platform.

“The Xbox team has been asking us to have a [Final Fantasy] game developed on our platform,” said the exec. “Also, the Xbox 360 console is available in many homes in US and European markets so that was not really a hard decision to make.”

In July 2008 at E3, Wada delivered a world-ending megaton by revealing the once-PS3 exclusive was heading to 360, the first time a FF title appeared outside of a PlayStation platform in 12 years.

All just by tapping MS exec Don Mattrick’s back and showing a video.

Final Fantasy XIII was released yesterday for PS3 and 360 in a US/EU sim-ship, with over 3 million units shipped in the west, it was revealed this morning. Overall shipped numbers for the series now stands at 96 million.

Writer for the game, Motomu Toriyama, is to speak at GDC tomorrow.

Latest

45 Comments

  1. Joe Anderson (wotta)

    Obvious choice really, there are a business after all.

    #1 4 years ago
  2. Michael O’Connor

    Propoganda driven headline.

    They did not ask them to make Final Fantasy XIII. They asked them to make a Final Fantasy game. Square choose for that to be Final Fantasy XIII.

    #2 4 years ago
  3. Blerk

    So have Microsoft ‘asked them’ to do a 360 port of Versus too? And did they ask them to make the 360 port of XIII ‘a bit shit’? Or was that Sony? :-D

    #3 4 years ago
  4. Erthazus

    So Final Fantasy XIII Versus is coming to Xbox 360 riiiiiight Wada-kun?

    #4 4 years ago
  5. Goliath

    @ Blerk

    The quality of the XBox 360 port is because of the haste in porting the game. The game was ported in 4 months. Had the port been handled differently, more efficiently, the result would have been more comparable.

    #5 4 years ago
  6. Erthazus

    @5 4 months? Jesus Christ i don’t believe this. MAybe proof link?
    Square Enix had years to make a decent port for a 360 console.

    #6 4 years ago
  7. JonFE

    I am sure many of those who object to FF (or any other 3rd party game for that matter) going multi-platform would likewise object doubling their own products’ potential customers by staying brand-loyal, right?

    #7 4 years ago
  8. Blerk

    Well, that’s quite the point, Goliath. The problem isn’t that it’s worse, the problem is that it’s needlessly worse than it should be.

    #8 4 years ago
  9. Michael O’Connor

    Except that’s its barely different, and in some areas (frame rate) actually better.

    And it most certainly wasn’t ported in four months. They were developing both formats side by side for at least a year.

    #9 4 years ago
  10. Mad-elph

    How could it be 4 months if they announced it back in June and the game came out this week. Sure they couldn’t have done it all in June, but they must have started the ground stages, plus everyone tells us converting from PC software to 360 is much easier than learning how to assign to cores of the Cell.

    #10 4 years ago
  11. Blerk

    I wouldn’t call a big resolution drop and some quite hideous movie encoding ‘barely different’, Michael. I’d call it ‘shoddy’. There’s no wonder the frame-rate’s better given that they’ve effectively knobbled the resolution.

    #11 4 years ago
  12. Johnny Cullen

    Except they didn’t announce it in June last year. It was near a full year after the announcement before they showed the 360 version at E3 last year.

    #12 4 years ago
  13. Michael O’Connor

    “I wouldn’t call a big resolution drop and some quite hideous movie encoding ‘barely different’, Michael. I’d call it ’shoddy’.”

    The video encoding is better than the vast majority of games out there even when it’s “knobbled”. The quality of the whole game’s visuals are infinitely superior to most games even when “knobbled”. In motion, when you’re playing, it’s almost completely impossible to tell the difference.

    It’s very easy to pick apart a frozen screenshot of the same scene between both formats, when the game has millions of frames in it.

    #13 4 years ago
  14. frod

    I’d be more concerned that it just sucks ass. I don’t think Edge were really too bothered about the resolution or video codec when they tore it a new one in their review.

    #14 4 years ago
  15. Johnny Cullen

    Also, I may as well point out to you my most recent purchase today, despite getting it yesterday morning for PS3.

    #15 4 years ago
  16. Blerk

    Well I’ll have to take your word for it on that, Michael, given that I’ve not actually seen a proper 360 version running yet.

    #16 4 years ago
  17. TimoTheThug

    Well Micheal, if you check out the lens of truth comparision you might even notice that the PS3 version ups the 360 version when it comes to frame rates. And there are huge diffrences even with a motion picture. Guess you need to stop playing on a poststamp sd tv :p (just kidding)

    #17 4 years ago
  18. Blerk

    Actually I hear it tears like a bastard on SD tellies. There are some very cross people in the forums.

    #18 4 years ago
  19. Eregol

    @Michael Connor’s comment at ’9′
    Isn’t it obvious though, the PS3 has better graphics, better graphics on similar hardware would result in lower frame rates as the processes needed to keep that action going would make the GPU strain.

    If the graphics are of inferior quality then the frame rate would obviously be better.

    You only have to toy around with detail and resolution settings on PCs to know that.

    #19 4 years ago
  20. daytripper

    bought the ps3 version, wish i hadnt, cant get into the story or anything i should of known better than to be sucked into the hyper machine

    #20 4 years ago
  21. G1GAHURTZ

    If the graphics are of inferior quality then the frame rate would obviously be better.

    You only have to toy around with detail and resolution settings on PCs to know that.

    LOL!

    If only the ‘rule‘ was that simple…

    #21 4 years ago
  22. OlderGamer

    @20

    I don’t like it either. Glad I only rented it.

    #22 4 years ago
  23. Eregol

    Let me put it this way.
    You have two similar architectures.
    You run the same game on one machine at full spec and on the other machine with the detail level and resolution turned down a notch.

    Which one will record the higher frame rates?

    #23 4 years ago
  24. frod

    They’re not two similar architectures and it’s not the same game.

    #24 4 years ago
  25. Michael O’Connor

    I know all this Eregol. The point I’m trying to make is graphical snobbery. The different is insignificant. You simple will *not* notice the difference when the game is in motion, and it’s completely inconsequential to the experience anyway.

    For the record, I bought the PS3 version. Only because most people I know bought it for the PS3 as well, and I enjoy comparing achievements / trophies with those of my friends.

    #25 4 years ago
  26. Eregol

    I guess most of the ‘graphical snobbery’ comes full circle to the Bayonetta debate.
    Lets face it, MS boys were lording it saying that the PS3 version was inferior (which is was, that is beyond doubt), and I guess half of the problem with FFXIII now is that the PS3 boys are (in their minds) getting their own back over that issue.

    The in game graphical differences you wouldn’t notice.
    However, watching the CGI vids, the macro-blocking is awful and looks like I’m watching upscaled SD on a HD tv.

    #26 4 years ago
  27. daytripper

    without sounding a fanboy to certain people i think the likes of mass effect 1&2 are better than this for RPGs, glorious HD cut scenes or not. I was sucked into the hype by friends but never again.

    #27 4 years ago
  28. frod

    The endless hardware debate, as pointless as it is, is rendered even more pointless when debating using phoned-in ports as an example.

    I think it’s more important to question exactly why S-E cut so many corners on such a high profile title.

    #28 4 years ago
  29. G1GAHURTZ

    Which one will record the higher frame rates?

    Similar?

    Despite the fact that they’re on completely different systems, with completely different hardware, and a completely different setup.

    detail level” is pretty ambiguous, too… What does that mean? Just ‘turn down’ the poly’s?? Turn all of the effects off? shrink the resolution of the textures?

    Sure, if it was the same game, on the same system, with the same hardware and the same setup, then yeah, a higher framerate will always be achievable by turning off things like effects, AA and lowering texture resolustions, etc.

    But there are such a huge amount of variables that dictate framerate, like object culling, where memory is allocated and other such things.

    It’s not just about resolution.

    If it were, the average game development process would be a whole lot shorter.

    #29 4 years ago
  30. OlderGamer

    Not to nitpick, but:

    “The in game graphical differences you wouldn’t notice.
    However, watching the CGI vids, the macro-blocking is awful and looks like I’m watching upscaled SD on a HD tv.”

    Most people won’t care. Only PS3 only crowd seems to care. As with Beyonetta, it was so bad it was VERY noticable. The difference between the FF version is not.

    I am playing the xb360 one, and while I don’t like it, I can’t faul the games graphies. It looks nice.

    #30 4 years ago
  31. reask

    Ah cmon guys after 3 years one multiplat was bound to look better on PS3. ;)

    #31 4 years ago
  32. Galactic_Barret

    When was the PS3 version completed? Didn’t they say something about starting the 360 version after that one was completed?

    #32 4 years ago
  33. Michael O’Connor

    “I guess most of the ‘graphical snobbery’ comes full circle to the Bayonetta debate.”

    The main difference is… the screen tearing issues in Bayonetta on the PS3 are quite literally game-breaking breaking. You *need* fluid animation in Bayonetta just to play it well, especially on the higher difficulties.

    “However, watching the CGI vids, the macro-blocking is awful and looks like I’m watching upscaled SD on a HD tv.”

    That’s utter bollocks. The CGI videos aren’t even *close* to looking like “upscaled SD”. Play the game on an SD resolution then come back and tell me that.

    “I think it’s more important to question exactly why S-E cut so many corners on such a high profile title.”

    They didn’t “cut corners”. The resolution is slightly lower and the video encoding is *slightly* lower. It was obviously necessary to get it onto 3 discs, and in motion the difference is barely noticeable.

    Now Bayonetta, that’s a phoned-in port.

    #33 4 years ago
  34. itsucks

    @reask : LOL, ouch!

    #34 4 years ago
  35. Eregol

    ““However, watching the CGI vids, the macro-blocking is awful and looks like I’m watching upscaled SD on a HD tv.”

    That’s utter bollocks. The CGI videos aren’t even *close* to looking like “upscaled SD”. Play the game on an SD resolution then come back and tell me that.”

    I think you’ve read this wrong.
    What I was saying is that it looks like SD upscaled to HD.
    If I watch a show through BT Vision, Virgin or similar on my HD tv it suffers from macro blocking where it has upscaled the picture to the higher resolution for the tv.

    The CGI on FFXIII suffers from that same problem.

    #35 4 years ago
  36. daytripper

    @26 “Lets face it, MS boys were lording it saying that the PS3 version was inferior (which is was, that is beyond doubt), and I guess half of the problem with FFXIII now is that the PS3 boys are (in their minds) getting their own back over that issue”

    the moment the 360 was announced, Xbox 1.5 it was called by the Japanese Avram Grant and Sony Mongoloids, then it got worse with xbot fanboys when sony brought their machine to table “cell suxs, still waiting to enter the matrix with ps2 ffs”. There is no better side here, both set of fanboys are absolute cockswipes, plain and simple.

    #36 4 years ago
  37. Blerk

    “They didn’t “cut corners”. The resolution is slightly lower and the video encoding is *slightly* lower. It was obviously necessary to get it onto 3 discs, and in motion the difference is barely noticeable.”

    For the pre-rendered video I could understand that. What I can’t understand is why the actual in-game stuff is lower-res too. What else could that be other than a rush-job? It’s not like you save disc-space by shifting fewer pixels.

    #37 4 years ago
  38. No_PUDding

    If it sells well on 360, I see it continuing, if it doesn’t, I doubt it will continue, unless they can outsource the porting job.

    And if Microsoft asked them, there’s a fair chance it was more than a sensible business decision to actually make that move.

    #38 4 years ago
  39. Johnny Cullen

    To be honest, the intro sequence for the game, for me, has a little slowdown compared to the Japanese version.

    And that’s on PS3 with an SDTV, btw.

    #39 4 years ago
  40. frod

    PS3 doesn’t do 480p in SD does it?

    #40 4 years ago
  41. frod

    errr 480i I mean. PAL PS3s that is.

    #41 4 years ago
  42. The Hindle

    Ive had a Ps3 from launch and was playing the multiplatform games on the Ps3 at that time. They never looked any different for me, its just fanboyism in disguise.

    #42 4 years ago
  43. Dralen

    Whatever…all I know is, its amazing on the PS3. As it should be, since it took fooking ages to develop.

    #43 4 years ago
  44. cookiejar

    I bet they did.

    #44 4 years ago
  45. Freek

    If you have an HD tv you will notice the difference. If you have the option to get it on PS3, then the choice is obviouse.

    If you only have the 360 then the discussion is mute, you only have to ask yourself “Do I want to play FF13?”.

    #45 4 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.