FF16 Dev’s Response To Exclusivity Complaints: ‘Just Buy A PS5!”

from the let-them-eat-playstations dept

We’ve been talking a lot about video game exclusivity over the past couple of years. The sudden uptick in concern over a longstanding practice that ebbs and flows with time is largely related to industry consolidation of studios coming out of the COVID pandemic. In times of financial stress in an industry, that is often when bigger companies gobble up smaller companies that can’t survive whatever the crises is. In this case, Microsoft began gobbling up studios, with Sony following suit. Suddenly everyone had to wonder if certain titles were going to be exclusive to those platforms. The wishy-washy responses to public concern by those big companies far from helped.

Sony appears to be going with exclusivity even outside its acquisition. Final Fantasy 16 is set to drop later this year. Much like the Final Fantasy 7 remake, it was always going to be a timed exclusive for the PlayStation 5.

Scrubbing through some old Final Fantasy XVI trailers, such as the “Awakening” one from September 2020, it was definitely stated that the game is “not available on other platforms for a limited time after release on PS5,” suggesting it could possibly hit other consoles in the future at the very least. Such was the case with the Final Fantasy VII Remake, where the “limited time” window was about a year.

As Kotaku notes, the more recent marketing output for the game has removed much of that language, leading many to have wondered if this was now going to be a purely PlayStation title. FF16’s producer, Naoki Yoshida, was interviewed recently and stated that the game would not come out on PC, unlike recent other games in the series, and instead advised any disappointed PC gamers to simply go out and buy Sony hardware.

Producer Naoki Yoshida, colloquially known as Yoshi-P, was interviewed at a Mahjong tournament over the weekend, where he was asked whether Final Fantasy XVI would come to PC, something Square Enix confirmed when it revealed the game almost two years ago. However, despite that detail found in the footnote text at the bottom of the trailer, Yoshi-P said the release information is wrong, according to a “rough translation” by the Japanese gaming news Twitter account Genki_JPN. In fact, there may not be a PC version coming at all, as Yoshi-P is apparently suggesting folks go out and buy a PS5 instead.

Tweet from an account saying:

Yoshi-P on rumors of a Final Fantasy XVI PC Version!

"Nobody said a word about a PC version releasing. Why is it like a PC version is releasing 6 months later? Don't worry about that, buy a PS5! (laughs) Sorry, I went overboard. We did our best so please look forward to it."

Now, perhaps that “(laughs)” was intended to do more work than it comes off doing by Yoshida. And I certainly hope so, because otherwise his suggestion very much brings to mind the potentially apocryphal quote: “Let them eat cake.”

I should also say that there are plenty of Twitter replies suggesting that people were getting this wrong and he was suggesting that anyone that doesn’t want to wait go get a PS5. I find that slightly hard to believe, given the scrubbing of the marketing material.

Regardless, a company representative being unclear and, frankly, that capricious over public concern about any sort of game exclusivity isn’t a good look. Sony can do as it likes with the game, but the company doesn’t have to come off as uncaring about it, assuming it does in fact care about its customers.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: sony

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FF16 Dev’s Response To Exclusivity Complaints: ‘Just Buy A PS5!””

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
84 Comments
Ahannu says:

So as player of Final Fantasy XIV including 1.0 and have been playing the game since 11yrs now(including 1.0) i don’t think he is being out of touch or mean, he very much doesn’t like to take about things till they are set in stone unless he has planned date in mind for a release he doesn’t like taking about release dates, he is one the most transparent and open developer i have ever seen in the gaming industry. he almost broke down in tears when he had to delay endwalker the FFXIV expansion. he as also made this joke before this in a the live letters he does for FFXIV (something he does regularly were he personally discusses content releases for FFXIV). he also not stupid he knows that like 80% of the FFXIV player base is on PC and that’s huge known group to sell to, in which he has a very high trust with the players. he likely doesn’t have time yet nail down even internally so doesn’t want to say anything, and there is the fact i don’t think Sony would like him talking about a PC version it could in their minds hurt sales for the PS5 version

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

He could still be a little more clear. It’s like when Microsoft acquired Bethesda and were extremely unclear on if their titles would come to non-Xbox consoles before finally admitting that yeah some games would be exclusive.

The fact the game’s marketing is trying to scrub all instances of the game being a timed exclusive doesn’t help matters either.

Anonymous Coward says:

Exclusives

The one upside to all this BS exclusive nonsense is that when it eventually ends up on “other” platforms it tends to be discounted … so, I end up waiting for it to be released “everywhere”, but then get a significant discount because it’s no longer popular.

This right here is the reason that I learned to have some patience … huge discounts on popular games once the exclusive bs ends…

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re:

End Section 230 and hold Big Tech accountable for destroying America!

The only thing ending section 230 would accomplish is turn websites hosted in the US into hellscapes, and stifle startups. The only ones in favour of that are assholes and people who don’t understand section 230.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Strawb is a liar for providing misinformation about Section 230 says:

Re: Re:

Everyone knows Section 230 is harmful. Regulating online harassment, removing doxing, cyberbullying, harassing content would lead to a better and safer internet it would not turn into hellscape. And startups – who the hell cares about startups? if you can’t make your startup safe for users, you don’t deserve to be in business.

You’re basically saying let’s sacrifice the privacy and safety of users by making startups immune from liability – well guess what, I have a better proposal: why don’t we sacrifice the money of startups to make the internet SAFER for everyone? Why should startups be favored over victims of online harassment?

You’re the only one who is lying and spreading misinformation about Section 230, aka all that “startups will be harmed” BS. Tell me one good reason why the public and America should give a shit about startups getting harmed when they are harming the general public by making money off defamation, harassment, and stalking?

You’re a real god damn f— liar and scum for supporting Section 230

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Dude, the Nazis don’t even like him any more. Him getting smacked in the mouth on camera and crying as he walked away from the scene of the attack did a huge hit to his reputation. Fascists will forgive any and every heinous act you can imagine, but a sign of weakness is unforgivable to them.

(Full disclosure: I enjoy watching Dick Spencer getting punched in the face over and over again as a ward against depression. I also hope whoever socked him goes to the grave with their secret.)

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Everyone knows Section 230 is harmful.

Liar.

Regulating online harassment, removing doxing, cyberbullying, harassing content would lead to a better and safer internet it would not turn into hellscape.

Section 230 isn’t stopping any of that, you liar.

And startups – who the hell cares about startups? if you can’t make your startup safe for users, you don’t deserve to be in business.

Spoken like a true dumbass. Google was once a startup. Facebook was once a startup. Twitter was once a startup. Amazon was once a startup.
If those companies could have been sued into nonexistence because some moron didn’t like how they moderated their websites, they wouldn’t exist.

You’re basically saying let’s sacrifice the privacy and safety of users by making startups immune from liability

No, I’m not, and the fact that you think that just shows how little you understand.

I have a better proposal: why don’t we sacrifice the money of startups to make the internet SAFER for everyone? Why should startups be favored over victims of online harassment?

Removing section 230 would make the internet UNsafer for everyone, because websites could no longer remove posts from harassers, doxxers and cyberbullies without liability. So let me spell it out: Removing section 230 would make websites LESS likely to remove the content you’re talking about, not more.

You’re the only one who is lying and spreading misinformation about Section 230

Said the liar who doesn’t understand what section 230 does.

Tell me one good reason why the public and America should give a shit about startups getting harmed

All major tech companies most likely wouldn’t exist. And if you don’t think that’s a good reason, you’re even dumber than you sound.

You’re a real god damn f— liar and scum

Said the liar.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jamesluke99 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I don't give a fuck if Google, Facebook didn't exist

They have not given me a single penny of their earnings so why the hell would I care if Google and Facebook didn’t exist?

They can exist but they need to make their products safe for the public by not allowing harmful content like cyberstalking.

Repeal Section 230 would force them to make their platforms safer.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jamesluke99 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 The world is simply better off if Section 230 didn't exist

Many victims of online harassment would be able to force platforms to remove harmful content.

Internet entrepeneurs would be worse off but who cares? I don’t get a fucken penny from their profits anyways. Why do I care if internet companies make less money? Are you giving your money to me?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

“Repeal Section 230 would force them to make their platforms safer.”

Historical evidence shows THE OPPOSITE.

Prior to 230, the options were –

Moderate NO content and enjoy protection from liability.

Moderate ANY content and you were liable for any and all content you missed.

Which option do you think service providers chose to go with once this legal precedent was established in the courts over 30 years ago?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jamesluke99 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Section 230 ALLOWS for FAR MORE HARASSMENT

Service providers are choosing to MODERATE NOTHING and hide under Section 230, even if it causes harm to victims. That’s not right, nor it is tenable. It was not intended by the original creators of the CDA 230 that platforms can ignore online abuse.

Big companies like Google and Microsoft are basically IGNORING all online abuse and leaving victims no redress for the crimes they have suffered.

Biden is calling for Section 230 reform again: https://telecoms.com/519355/us-president-once-more-calls-for-section-230-reform/

You people on Tech Dirt are liars because you benefit financially from Section 230, that’s why you ignore the reality that Section 230 harms a lot more people than it helps. Section 230 only helps tech entrepreneurs who want to get richer off of causing more people harm. Many of you should be in jail for supporting crime. You guys are pigs.

Rocky says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Service providers are choosing to MODERATE NOTHING and hide under Section 230, even if it causes harm to victims.

You are really out of touch with reality, aren’t you?

Tell us, what was the stated reason for why Musk bought Twitter? It certainly wasn’t because Twitter didn’t moderate.

Section 230 only helps tech entrepreneurs who want to get richer off of causing more people harm. Many of you should be in jail for supporting crime. You guys are pigs.

Seems you are an emotional wreck that can’t stop lying and it doesn’t help your case one bit because no one takes a liar seriously.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

I enable far worse by being a Singapore citizen, and even I don’t think Section 230 enables crimial harm.

Google et al have tried to do business in China with verying results, mind. Even WITH Section 230 in place and specifically with Google, trying to sell a version of their search engine that would AID China’s censorship.

And if you are talking about the removal of terrorist content, well, is the CIA gonna help Google then? Or will you fucking white supremacists scream that the CIA is not allowed to do so because you guys want to continue harassing anyone who isn’t worshipping the white race?

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Service providers are choosing to MODERATE NOTHING and hide under Section 230, even if it causes harm to victims.

This is demonstrably false. Most large platforms are actively trying to moderate against harmful content. That they are imperfect at getting rid of all of it is inevitable at the scales they operate on and doesn’t mean they aren’t trying. Furthermore, refusing to remove content without a court ruling that the content is unlawfully harmful also doesn’t mean that they are moderating nothing.

It was not intended by the original creators of the CDA 230 that platforms can ignore online abuse.

It was intended by the original creators that platforms should be free to moderate as they choose without government intervention, and that’s exactly what they’re doing. They ask so didn’t want every platform to engage in no moderation if they didn’t want liability for the stuff that slipped through the cracks, but engaging in no moderation, while not the purpose of 230, was also considered in the writing of the bill and understood to be a potential consequence.

Big companies like Google and Microsoft are basically IGNORING all online abuse and leaving victims no redress for the crimes they have suffered.

[citation needed]

Biden is calling for Section 230 reform again

And he is wrong again.

You people on Tech Dirt are liars because you benefit financially from Section 230, […]

[citation needed]

[…] that’s why you ignore the reality that Section 230 harms a lot more people than it helps.

Please provide evidence for the claim that Section 230 harms anyone at all, let alone more than it helps.

Section 230 only helps tech entrepreneurs who want to get richer off of causing more people harm.

Did you miss the part where §230 protects users from liability for content posted by others as well? Or where it also protects against liability for decisions to moderate, not just decisions not to moderate? Or how it also ensures they aren’t liable for content that they chose to remove? Or how it protects everyone equally regardless of size or profits (including non-profits and individual bloggers)? It most definitely does not protect only entrepreneurs who “get richer off of causing more people harm” by refusing to (or merely failing to) moderate potentially or actually harmful content.

Many of you should be in jail for supporting crime.

Providing a tool by which crimes can be committed is not supporting crime per se.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

They have not given me a single penny of their earnings so why the hell would I care if Google and Facebook didn’t exist?

Thank you for highlightning your selfishness on this issue.

They can exist

Except they most likely wouldn’t if section 230 didn’t exist.

they need to make their products safe for the public by not allowing harmful content like cyberstalking.

Cyberstalking isn’t allowed, but I’m not surprised you failed to read the TOS of these sites before spouting nonsense.

Repeal Section 230 would force them to make their platforms safer.

Repealing section 230 would either severely inhibit speech on those platforms, or make things worse than they are now by forcing platforms to not moderate at all.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

And the established big tech companies. They would be fine because they have the lawyers to navigate a post-Section 230 world but it will do a GREAT job of strangling potential competitors to Google and Facebook before they can become a threat to their market dominance.

Big Tech LOVES regulation, and the more costly the better because all it does is entrench them further and locks them into a position of market dominance.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

wjohnson343 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Without Section 230 I'll spend more time offline

Nobody needs to use the internet and certainly nobody needs the internet to be one big toilet full of harmful content, harassment, and hate.

Arthur Chu is the man:

https://www.salon.com/2015/10/13/swatting_stalking_doxing_how_reddit_and_other_web_2_0_communities_broke_the_internet/

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Ah yes, as a “child of the 90s” he clearly isn’t old enough to recall the days before 230 and cases like Cubby vs Compuserve.

230 is the reason we HAVE any kind of moderation of user posted content on the internet. And the only ones who’d be happy to see it go are the entrenched tech giants who can afford to weather its removal.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Dance my little puppets dance

230 is the reason we HAVE any kind of moderation of user posted content on the internet. And the only ones who’d be happy to see it go are the entrenched tech giants who can afford to weather its removal.

It’s more than a little funny how the people trying to ‘take down/reign in Big Tech’ by gutting 230 are in actuality acting like good little puppets for those companies by pushing for exactly what they’d want.

Kill 230 and the likes of Google and Facebook will not just be fine they will be better off, because while they can compensate and pay the legal fees to argue their first amendment rights in court any potential competitors won’t be so lucky.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

Well yes, small outlets like techdirt are able to exist thanks to 230. so indirectly, in the sense that they are able to operate independently without billions of dollars in dark money backing, yes, they “make money” due to 230 existing.

Drew Wilson says:

Just Buy a PS5

I’m pretty sure a “SOLD OUT” sign can’t run this game.

Besides, I’m happily plugging away on older consoles anyway. There’s lot’s of entertainment to be had dusting off a PS4 and playing some games on that. Plus, most of the games are cheaper to buy. I don’t get overly worked up over not playing the absolute newest game on the market, beta testing said game for the devs in the process.

Anonymous Coward says:

Square Enix aren’t stupid (Well, okay, going all-in on NFTs just after the market collapses aside) – but tbh even the NFT thing proves they know a decent grift when they see one. And Sony paying them tens of millions a year to not make a game is a vastly safer proposition than actually making a port of a game and having to compete in a market.

bt garner says:

Sony has not cared about customers for years

That’s the bottom line, once they have your money, they truly do not care. They will lock you out of your account and if you have never used a CC with them (and after the breeches, who would) then in order to get back in you need to provide the serial number of the first sony console you registered with them. Yeah, pretty sure that first Vita is in a landfill in China somewhere by now.

Before they eliminated their twitter support route, it was filled with an abnormally high number of customer complaints; all unaddressed. Spending money on sony consoles and games is gambling. It is not a matter of if, but when you will lose everything, usually through no fault of your own.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jamesluke99 (profile) says:

Tech Dirt is a corporate liar for supporting Section 230 and putting public in danger

Tech Dirt makes money off online harassment and Section 230, that’s why they support it and gaslight the real issue of online abuse.

Even Biden wants regulations for tech companies. There is real harm from tech companies and Section 230. Repeal this outdated bloated law and sue tech companies out of existence.

We don’t care about tech profits because tech companies never cared about human lives.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/11/tech/biden-congress-tech-legislation/index.html

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Strawb (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Everyone knows Section 230 harms a lot of people.

You don’t know the meaning of the word “everyone”.

It helps tech entrepreneurs and harms everyone else.

Stop lying. Section 230 protects every website hosted in the US, from the smallest personal blog to Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. If section 230 was repealed, you could sue a travel blog if they removed posts of people being assholes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Jamesluke99 (profile) says:

Instead of making the internet safer, Tech Dirt chooses to support crime

By spreading misinformation to prevent the repeal of Section 230. Instead of making the world a safer and better place online, Tech Dirt tries to gaslight online abuse and blame victims, or pretend it doesn’t exist, as Tech Dirt only seems to care about corporate profits as opposed to user safety.

Tech Dirt doesn’t seem to care if the internet is a cesspool of online harassment, abuse, doxing, cyber-stalking, etc….

Tech Dirt only seems to care about corporate profits and putting the money interests of tech entrepreneurs over the rights of victims to hold tech platforms accountable for enabling online abuse.

I sincerely hope Tech dirt is sued into oblivion when Section 230 is repealed by the Supreme Court.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ll give him this – if people weren’t aware he was full of shit before this little stunt, his constant spamming on irrelevant threads leaves people with little doubt. It’s like the reverse of advertising, where he’s ensuring that way less people support his cause than they would if he didn’t do anything.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
PaulT (profile) says:

I have a better counter-offer – “I won’t buy FF16”. I have plenty of competitors to play games from without spending hundreds on a new console. This is non-negotiable, come back to me when you’re willing to take my money without an extra random to Sony’s hardware division.

Just don’t start whining about things like piracy or bad reviews or such things if the game doesn’t sell the number you expected. If you’re refusing money, you can’t complain when you don’t have it.

James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

Square Enix burned a lot of bridges over the last decade, and its recently renewed full fledged dedication of NFT-based grift games, and 3 heavily monetized “long-term” mobile games all cancelled within 15 months of launch in the last quarter have completely soured me on a brand I used to support with every release. I might have considered purchasing after a possible exclusivity window, but this behavior just means FFXVI becomes a hard no. As you say, the market is competitive, both from AAA and Indy developers. This whole thing is a dumb PR move for a company that already is intentionally restricting the audience for a niche genre to a console that can’t have a broad install base due to ongoing shortages.

Taylor Paul says:

Well

This all started with Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo had to follow to keep their hardware sales up. So far Im finding that just about everything plays better on the PS5 than Xbox and PC and the games on switch are made for them and can’t do what the others can do to limits. But they all have exclusives now, its just pick your poison and I have always had better luck with all my playstations still working to this day.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“they all have exclusives now”

That’s only part of the story. Many exclusives exist, but a lot of them were timed exclusives, as FF16 was meant to be when first announced – that is, they’re released on one platform and then later on PC or another console. Sony seem to be the ones focussed on full exclusives, that is you have to buy their console if you ever want to play their games. Which at one point in history made some sense with the vast difference in hardware, but now that consoles are just variations on PC hardware there’s no reason on a technical level not to offer cross-platform.

I’m on the other side of this divide. I very much prefer the XBox achievement system to the others, and I don’t have time to play all the games on that platform I want to play, so I’m sticking to that. xCloud ensures I can play Series X games even on my One, and it performs well enough for my needs. Argue all you want about which console’s exclusives you personally prefer, there’s plenty of high quality games for me to pass my time.

So, I’ll play games that make it over to XBox eventually (for example, I just completed Deathloop, which was originally a PS console exclusive), but I’m not paying hundreds to buy a new console that will only get turned on for God Of War, FF or Uncharted, as much as I’d like to play those games. I’ll stick to what I’ve got and pay my money to people who want to sell to me.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Microsoft’s gaming division isn’t swimming in bad PR”

That’s the fun part here. The XBox One launch was disastrous, to the point where it was arguably a system seller for the PS4. Most of the advantages we see today – including the fact that if you use xCloud you don’t even have to own a console at all to play first party MS published games, let alone the latest model – were in reaction to that disaster. A far cry from Sony’s apparent tactic to use big games to force people to buy expensive hardware.

I’m sure they’re not 100% clean and there will be some kind of story to tarnish their reputation in future, but right now they seem to have redeemed themselves as a consumer and developer-friendly platform.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...