So, I’ve been in a pretty heated debate with a guy who is adamant about KH remaining a “Playstation Exclusive” (which is a total crock of shit if you actually know the series). He’s been arguing all the typical arguments, like the collections not being on Xbox One, thus robbing people on Xbox the experience of playing through the games & finding out what’s going on in the stories of the games & the overall story of the series (which I can say is not a great argument for reasons I can elaborate on), KH not selling well on the Xbox One (which there’s no prior history of the series on Xbox, so let’s wait for the games to come out & wait a few months or so to see the sales numbers, attacking Xbox players as being nothing but a bunch of American teenage boys who only play games like COD & GTA (which, I’m pretty sure that’s only a minority & I’m sure Playstation also has players like those who only like those kind of games), etc. I’m gonna stop there before I get carried away with the arguments that don’t make sense.
Now, this guy has been trying to argue that the European box arts for the series are indicative of exclusivity on the console family, despite Nomura & Square’s seeming stance on the issue being, “I don’t know. We COULD do ports if we feel it’s warranted, but we don’t know…”
First, he linked me the European box art for KH1 from 2002. Seemingly saying that this decision was something Square &/or Sony intended from the start.
This speaks to me that Sony & Square’s European branches have different standards with which to slap the “Only on Playstation” moniker on their games, as can be seen here with the NA release of Dissidia Final Fantasy NT.
I also have the reveal box art, which I think is the Japanese box art because of the Kanji/Katakana on it absent from the NA & EU versions. I don’t have the Japanese releases myself, so this is just my assumption, but I don’t think that the Japanese versions of the games have this moniker either.
…so, obviously, that was probably the intent at some point. The thing about this is that KH3 had been announced as multiplat before 1.5 even came out, right? So, I can only think the moniker was on there because by the time 1.5 & 2.5 came out, the PS4 & X1, which is just weird to me that they would have that moniker there, but maybe Sony was sure that they were the only ones getting the collections, since the Xbox 360 & PS3 were slowly being phased out & Microsoft was more focusing on the One than the 360, whereas Sony, while definitely focusing on the PS4, wasn’t done with the PS3. I also imagine that they developed the collections for the PS3 instead of the 4 because they new the architecture better. I mean, that happens in new console generations usually, especially when the past consoles were still being supported for the time being, since it takes time for most developers to get used to newer console architectures.
However, it seems things have changed since Nomura said here that, in addition to KH3 being on the X1, they ARE considering a Switch port after the 2 initial ports come out. Plus, it IS possible for them to port the collections to the X1 if they feel it’s warranted.
And I also just realized that the “Only on Playstation” moniker doesn’t mean a game is explicitly exclusive, it’s just that the game isn’t on other platforms, which is most likely why the moniker existed on the EU box arts of the PS2 versions of the games & the PS3 versions of the collections. 2.8 didn’t have the moniker at launch & neither did 1.5+2.5, otherwise they’d have it if they were meant to just be on that console. Need to get second opinions on this. I had a thread before a few months or so ago on this forum about the “exclusivity deal” being a crock that was just being spread around by Sony fanboys because nobody had another explanation as to the games only being on PS2 & 3, but not GameCube or Xbox.
I mean, if they were exclusive, Square wouldn’t even try to put the games on to other consoles. Square is a company that loves money. I DO think that just focusing on the Japanese market for releasing games (which is what Nomura said is apparently a big factor in deciding to release ports of the collections on the Xbox after 3 comes out) is incredibly shortsighted, especially when it’s the worldwide audience combined with the Japanese one that have yielded the most sales, but it’s Square. I mean, a region-specific limited physical release with a digital release as well like with Bandai Namco & their release of the ports of the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm trilogy on to PS4 & Xbox One last year, but whatever. I still believe that the games aren’t bound by consoles & it’s up to Square to release these games on whatever platforms they can & want to.
Is the moniker being on these games in certain regions, & only one release each in NA, indicative of their “exclusivity” status, or no? I’m genuinely curious about this if anyone has anything to add here.
Hey, Everyone.
So, I’ve been in a pretty heated debate with a guy who is adamant about KH remaining a “Playstation Exclusive” (which is a total crock of shit if you actually know the series). He’s been arguing all the typical arguments, like the collections not being on Xbox One, thus robbing people on Xbox the experience of playing through the games & finding out what’s going on in the stories of the games & the overall story of the series (which I can say is not a great argument for reasons I can elaborate on), KH not selling well on the Xbox One (which there’s no prior history of the series on Xbox, so let’s wait for the games to come out & wait a few months or so to see the sales numbers, attacking Xbox players as being nothing but a bunch of American teenage boys who only play games like COD & GTA (which, I’m pretty sure that’s only a minority & I’m sure Playstation also has players like those who only like those kind of games), etc. I’m gonna stop there before I get carried away with the arguments that don’t make sense.
Now, this guy has been trying to argue that the European box arts for the series are indicative of exclusivity on the console family, despite Nomura & Square’s seeming stance on the issue being, “I don’t know. We COULD do ports if we feel it’s warranted, but we don’t know…”
First, he linked me the European box art for KH1 from 2002. Seemingly saying that this decision was something Square &/or Sony intended from the start.
https://prnt.sc/jp5zoy
However, if you look at the NA box art, nowhere does this moniker appear.
http://www.theisozone.com/images/cover/ps2_910.jpg
This speaks to me that Sony & Square’s European branches have different standards with which to slap the “Only on Playstation” moniker on their games, as can be seen here with the NA release of Dissidia Final Fantasy NT.
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/517CbejjVPL.jpg
I then challenged this dude’s claim with 1.5+2.5, plus 2.8 &, what a shock, he linked the EU box art for 1.5+2.5.
https://prnt.sc/jpb7gw
I had, in my previous response to him, linked the NA box art, which, again, lacks the moniker.
https://www.koi-nya.net/img/subidos_posts/2017/01/kingdom-hearts-1-5-2-5-730x911.jpg
The guy didn’t link box art to 2.8, but I looked up the EU box art & it DOES have the moniker…
https://c.76.my/Malaysia/ps4-kingdom-hearts-hd-2-8-final-chapter-prologue-r2-saveallstore-1702-18-F280345_1.jpg
…while the NA release doesn’t…
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/6115IsFIYmL.jpg
I also have the reveal box art, which I think is the Japanese box art because of the Kanji/Katakana on it absent from the NA & EU versions. I don’t have the Japanese releases myself, so this is just my assumption, but I don’t think that the Japanese versions of the games have this moniker either.
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.mJHhJspZcFGABlTf45UHRQHaJS&pid=Api
I mean, I DO see 1.5 & 2.5 have that “Only on Playstation” moniker…
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81v%2BykC1SYL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/911khmDJL3L._AC_SL1500_.jpg
…so, obviously, that was probably the intent at some point. The thing about this is that KH3 had been announced as multiplat before 1.5 even came out, right? So, I can only think the moniker was on there because by the time 1.5 & 2.5 came out, the PS4 & X1, which is just weird to me that they would have that moniker there, but maybe Sony was sure that they were the only ones getting the collections, since the Xbox 360 & PS3 were slowly being phased out & Microsoft was more focusing on the One than the 360, whereas Sony, while definitely focusing on the PS4, wasn’t done with the PS3. I also imagine that they developed the collections for the PS3 instead of the 4 because they new the architecture better. I mean, that happens in new console generations usually, especially when the past consoles were still being supported for the time being, since it takes time for most developers to get used to newer console architectures.
However, it seems things have changed since Nomura said here that, in addition to KH3 being on the X1, they ARE considering a Switch port after the 2 initial ports come out. Plus, it IS possible for them to port the collections to the X1 if they feel it’s warranted.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2017/07/16/kingdom-hearts-3-director-switch-version-maybe-possible-after-xbox-one-ps4-versions-are-released
And I also just realized that the “Only on Playstation” moniker doesn’t mean a game is explicitly exclusive, it’s just that the game isn’t on other platforms, which is most likely why the moniker existed on the EU box arts of the PS2 versions of the games & the PS3 versions of the collections. 2.8 didn’t have the moniker at launch & neither did 1.5+2.5, otherwise they’d have it if they were meant to just be on that console. Need to get second opinions on this. I had a thread before a few months or so ago on this forum about the “exclusivity deal” being a crock that was just being spread around by Sony fanboys because nobody had another explanation as to the games only being on PS2 & 3, but not GameCube or Xbox.
I mean, if they were exclusive, Square wouldn’t even try to put the games on to other consoles. Square is a company that loves money. I DO think that just focusing on the Japanese market for releasing games (which is what Nomura said is apparently a big factor in deciding to release ports of the collections on the Xbox after 3 comes out) is incredibly shortsighted, especially when it’s the worldwide audience combined with the Japanese one that have yielded the most sales, but it’s Square. I mean, a region-specific limited physical release with a digital release as well like with Bandai Namco & their release of the ports of the Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm trilogy on to PS4 & Xbox One last year, but whatever. I still believe that the games aren’t bound by consoles & it’s up to Square to release these games on whatever platforms they can & want to.
Is the moniker being on these games in certain regions, & only one release each in NA, indicative of their “exclusivity” status, or no? I’m genuinely curious about this if anyone has anything to add here.
Edited by Scsigs