Talk:Final Fantasy XIII/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The blonde "Mr. 33cm"??

It's in the character section. is that true to be his name? I'm pretty sure it's what some fans only call him as I've seen from a FF13 fansite. WizzieBlue 07:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's just a name we've given him until we get his real name from Square Kitmitsu 19:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. But why does it say Tetsuya Nomura? I'll change it first. WizzieBlue 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It IS the name he has been given OFFICIALLY. It's like a nickname they said, and was related to how big his feet are (33 centimeters). Here is an article mentioning it http://www.jeux-france.com/news19371_final-fantasy-xiii-des-details.html It says his strange code name "Mr. 33cm" is given to him because of the size of his feet"70.55.53.200 02:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Ether_Snake

introduction

The introduction to this article seems too long and stretched out. Perhaps some of the intro should be moved into seperate sections. What do you think? --EvilReborn [会話] 09 April 2007

Most of the content is repeated later in the Development section so I'll move it into there. UnfriendlyFire 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes

Tetsuya Nomura said final fantasy 13 series will not be only ps3 and mobile but he did not say ff 13 the one that the ps3 is going multiplatform what proves you wrong, there is no link that states ff 13 the one for the ps3 will also go to the wii and 360

21 April 2007 (UTC)

final fantasy confirmed NOT to be an exclusive

http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html so...what do we put for the platforms section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.34.163.171 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

That website doesn't cite it's sources, however there was an interview this week with Motomu Toriyama which states that the compilation of Final Fantasy XIII, Fabula Nova Crystallis is not exclusive to PlayStation 3. He doesn't state anywhere that the actual game FFXIII will be appearing on other consoles. Assassingod 08:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliable industry sources are saying Final Fantasy 13 is in development for the Xbox 360 & PC

I have quite a few friends have have given me reliable information in the past, and they are now saying Final Fantasy 13 is in development for the Xbox 360 and PC. The situation is nearly identical to the contractual obligations faced by EA with Fight Night Round 3, Epic with Unreal Tournament 2007 (which is now called Unreal Tournament 3), Ubisoft with Assassins Creed, and so many other game companies and the games they were making, like Mercs 2, and Devil May Cry 4. All of those games were in development for the Xbox 360, just like the rumors were saying, but the game companies were contractually obligated to remain silent. This is the exact same situation Square Enix is facing with Final Fantasy 13. Remember, Square Enix actually has more games in development for the Xbox 360 than the Playstation 3, so we know they are fully supporting the Xbox 360. We know Final Fantasy XI is already on the Xbox 360 and PC. The same reliable sources of information are making it clear the we will receive official announcements about Final Fantasy 13 for the Xbox 360 and PC very soon. Until then, it is definitely worth making a note of it that reliable sources of information talked about this beforehand, once again. Mike mgoblue 00:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And WHO exactly are you? Waltzing in here telling that you have "friends" with reliable information. Are you some kind of video game business analyst cum speculator? You're just an anonymous, like everyone here in wikipedia, but you're talking as if you own the gaming industry. Please don't give us rubbish like this, unless you can really back it up with a developer interview article or secret company documents scanned into the web or something. Because YOU, yes You, mr Mike Mgoblue are not in the position to tell us things until you prove it. wikipedia is all about reliable and verifiable source. My doubting you is proof your speculation is moot and invalid. Verify your words, because I can't take it anymore! I want FFXIII to be in Xbox too, but so far it's all rumors! 218.208.115.25 02:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Either way, the information cannot be verified, therefore, will not go into the article. To the second user: Being polite'll get you much farther. --PureRED - Kyle Floyd 02:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've been hearing the same rumours and unfortunately there won't be any proper announcements until the FF birthday bash. Confirmation will come, just have patience. Until then I guess we can't add it. It won’t change anything in the longer term. Movellon 12:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

it still exclusive everyone

Hashimoto brought up Final Fantasy XIII as a comparison for Square Enix's decision to expand upon the FFVII storyline through the Compilation project years after the game's original release. "Different from something like VII, which we expanded upon afterwards, with Fabula Nova Crystallis FFXIII, we've thought about an expansive world setting from the start. Under the idea of wanting everyone to be sucked into the world for 10 years, we're preparing a number of categories." He likened this approach to films like Star Wars, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings www.ps3ign.com

Square enix just said FF 13 is going to last 10 years and read on the ff 13 page Motomu Toriyama of Square Enix stated in the April Edition of Australian PlayStation Magazine that the Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII series will not be limited to the PlayStation 3 and mobile phones, as there are other games in the series that will be introduced to other consoles.[17]

KEYWORDS: other games in the series that will be introduced to other consoles.[17]ff 13 will have a series of spinoffs as of now they are unannounce WHY CAN'T PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THIS COMMON SENSE

FF 13 is no longer exclusive to the Playstation 3

The magazines have made it clear that Final Fantasy is no longer exclusive to the Playstation 3. That is the bottom line, and it has been confirmed by Square Enix. Which systems will be receiving FF 13 were not yet announced, but it goes without saying that the PC will received FF 13, just like it received other versions of Final Fantasy, and the Xbox 360 will likely receive it as well, since a PC port is so inexpensive. Motomu Toriyama has made this clear not only in magazines that websites reported on (http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html?PHPSESSID=b74f8a842e7af06576dbccea5054cf35) but he has also discussed this on several videogame radio shows. When asked about which other systems Final Fantasy 13 might be released for, he said something to the effect of, "I cannot comment on that at this time." In other words, he is contractually obligated to remain silent. That is the exact same thing Capcom said about Devil May Cry 4, Epic said about Unreal Tournament 2007 (now called Unreal Tournament 3), Ubisofot said about Assassins Creed, and Sega said about VF 5. Let's be honest, there are 150 MILLION PC users, and there are over eight million more Xbox 360 owners than PS3 owners, and the market of Xbox 360 owners is growing greater for the Xbox 360 each day, because the Xbox 360 is outselling the PS3. It would be dumb for Square Enix to avoid released FF 13 for the PC and Xbox 360. When you consider that it is made clear on websites and magazines (http://www.ps3center.net/story-394.html?PHPSESSID=b74f8a842e7af06576dbccea5054cf35) and on radio shows, then you need to just ackowledge the facts so people aren't deceived. Mike mgoblue 16:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Square Enix has not stated Final Fantasy XIII (the game, not the series) is for any other console. The end. --Teggles 07:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. On may 12 and may 13 The square enix party came and went and there was no announcement of final fantasy 13 being ported to the xbox360. It still remains exclusive to the ps3.

Final Fantasy XIII is not PS3 Exclusive!!! No really, my friend who knows a guy says it isn't, I swear!

NOTICE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS TO POST ABOUT FFXIII'S EXCLUSIVITY

Before you come on and clutter up the page with rumors and things that you consider reliable, let me first point out a couple of things.

1. I don't care who your friend is, I don't care what "Reliable industry sources" connections you have, I don't even care if you work for Square Enix. Unless WE can WP:VERIFY your source with a citation or a link, then it doesn't mean shit. It is nothing more than a rumor. "Verifiability, not truth" is one of Wikipedia's mottos.
2. I don't care what scenarios in the past are similar. "The situation is nearly identical to the contractual obligations faced by EA with..." Blah blah blah. I don't care. Who says it's similar? Have you personally read both contracts? How do you know they are "nearly identical"? Can we even WP:VERIFY that you are telling the truth? It isn't the same contract, and the results may not be the same.
3. I don't care if you are a journalist or not. If you really are a journalist, then you should understand why we need a WP:Reliable source. We cannot just "take your word for it", we cannot just trust you. We need a WP:RS before we can do anything.
4. An anouncement that FFXIII is not exclusive DOES NOT mean that it will be released for Xbox 360 or PC, I don't care how logical the move would be nor do I care how much "common sense" it makes. The WP:RS that I hope you provide to back your claims must explicitly say that it will be released for Xbox 360 or PC. If it doesn't explicitly say that, even if it says that Xbox 360 and PC are being considered, then for Wikipedia's purposes it isn't true, because there is no way for us to know whether it is true or not.
5. Likewise, an announcement that says that Fabula Nova Crystallis will not be exclusive DOES NOT, in any way, mean that FFXIII will not be exclusive. It is but one game of the FNC series. Just because the series isn't exclusive, doesn't mean the individual games can't be exclusive.
6. I don't care how big the fansite is, it's still a fansite. PSM3, PS3 Center, GameSpot, whatever, they are fansites. And what do fansites do? They spread gossip and rumors and news. The problem is, we can't tell which piece from them is news and which piece is rumor. Fansites, no matter how notable, are not a WP:Reliable source. And if this bothers you, consider that if they mention an "official announcement" from SE, then it should be possible to find such an announcement from other, reliable sources. So give us that other, reliable source, not the fansite.

What it all comes down to, really, is that Wikipedia's policy on WP:ATTRIBUTION is very clear that we cannot any include information without having a WP:Reliable source that we can WP:Verify. "Verifiability, not truth." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 16:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some sense to this discussion. I don't know if it will be exclusive or not, none of us do and that is exactly the point. The evidence we have at current says that it is going to be PS3 exclusive and that is how the article should (According to the rules) stay until an official (And varifiable, as NicholaiDaedalus pointed out) anouncement is made.Simondrake 18:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes and yes. Seconded, closed, and sealed until definitive news or reports from reputable sources come up. Until then, the article states already what needs to be said. That the Fabula Nova Series is not exclusive but the main FF XIII game is still, until reported otherwise, exclusive. Berserkerz Crit 15:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot is generally a reliable source, but not as much as IGN or print magazines when it comes to upcoming games. — Deckiller 07:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to put GameSpot and IGN on an equal. IGN is run by Fox Interactive Media and GameSpot is run by CNET. These are both large for-profit companies that hold fact-checking as a high priority. --Teggles 07:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Not another content dispute please?

I agree with Teggles. The "Toriyama-April Playstation Magazine" statement can be removed since it's more relevant for the Fabula Nova Crystallis article. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 13:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I disagree and think the staus quo should be maintained. I think it is relevent to the article and builds upon the previous entry from which reported the comments from Sony about FF13 exclusivity being under discussion.Movellon 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This article is about Final Fantasy XIII, not Fabula Nova Crystallis. The information only pertains to FNC. How, I ask, is that relevant? It's not. Also, in one of your reverts, you claim that editors have agreed that it should be there. Can you show me this? --Teggles 04:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that it adds colour and builds upon the previous point that was added regarding the comments from Sony and gives the reader both sides of a story, one that FF13 may be multi-platform and 2nd that this multi-platform may not be in relation to FF13 and might just mean that it applies across the series. I strongly feel that it should stay in the article. Please show me where consensus has been reached for you to edit it out because I certainly do not agree with that. I think the status quo should be maintained in this instance. So clearly consensus has not been reached.Movellon 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go again. Okay, my solution. Both comments go out. The first comment doesn't build anything concrete the article, it only enforces rumors and speculations. Second comment does that as well. Wikipedia does not want these trivial comments as a matter of fact. It's better for both comments to be removed, and wait for a more concrete and more relevant statement. As for my stand: Remove both comments. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 09:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing both. The problem with this is people will consider the removal a "denial from fanboys". But I think the information is only there for the hopeful, simply stated to mislead. The only information on FFXIII's non-exclusivity is from the president of SCE France. This person has ZERO say in FFXIII's development. That kind of information from that kind of person is obviously misleading. --Teggles 10:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think removing both article that come from verifiable sources and are both relevant to the article is in violation of the Wiki code and they should be kept in. This is an article that is about a product that is still in development and disputes happen. It is very obvious to me that the removal of the article is intended to edit out the opinion that the FF13 is may be going exclusive. It is true that the Sony have cast doubt that it will be exclusive and they'd know as they are the one discussing it with square and it is true that Square have added comment about the series which adds colour to the Sony comment. I think both should stay in the article otherwise I think we should go through the entire article with a fine tooth comb and remove all references and points that don't meet this new criteria that you two have created for these two articles. Movellon 10:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you're forgetting it's the president of Sony Computer Entertainment France. Hell, it isn't even Sony Computer Entertainment Europe. It's a sub-subsidiary of the company who still have little say on the issue. I don't know what you're thinking, but there's no "Wiki code" (lol) that every single bit of information is provided, even if the information is misleading and, in this case, the person commenting is unreliable. The quote you have made is actually a key point of the argument: "It is very obvious to me that the removal of the article is intended to edit out the opinion that the FF13 is may be going exclusive". That's exactly it. It's an opinion. An opinion from someone uninvolved in the project. --Teggles 10:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

True, an opinion. Not a fact entirely. People should be able to distinguish between opinion and fact at this stage, surely? Wikipedia builds itself upon facts. I cite this from WP:RS where: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple reliable sources". But someone wants a consensus. It's clear we have a consensus here. 2 for removing both comments. That's consensus enough for me. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 11:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It's an opinion from someone unrelated to the production. I don't see how that's notable. --Teggles 11:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. The president of Sony Computer Entertainment France has said that to his knowledge FF13 isn't exclusive to the PS3 platform, with the greatest respect, I'm sure he would be more qualified to pass comment on that then you two. I'm sure that if that wasn't the case then SCEE or SCE or Square would have corrected him. They haven't. No, I think we should leave it in. Again if you want to be ultra strict with these entries then I suggest we go through the entire article and remove everything that doesn't fit this new regime you want to impose. You can't have it all your own way.Movellon 15:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You are putting words in the French guy's mouth. He has said exclusivity is under negotations - that is all; just means Sony are negotiating to get exclusivity on their platform, not that "to his knowledge... isn't exclusive". So far, the facts are these: it is coming to the PS3; other entries in the FF13 collection are coming to other platforms. As for the FNC quote, that is fact, as other entries are coming to other platforms, and should go in the FNC article, not the FF13 article. 137.205.113.139 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the statement was made in French, it could be very possible to take it multiple ways. I'm opting for the slightly-less-opinoinated "To his knowledge, the game has not been stated as an exclusive." =D ÷ ¿Daisen¡i? ÷ 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It has been the practice of Wikipedia to ensure verifiability and reliability of sources. We are not "having it all our own way", we strive to create the article to the best of Wikipedia's standards, thus isn't one to source out speculation and rumors. All Final Fantasy articles have been checked into so. Most FF articles have, from their development section to game system, been cited from the developers themselves, and reviews & criticism from relevant and reliable game reviewers. That said, even if you protest on this, once the game comes out this article would be rewritten to the standard FF article for Wikipedia. For examples of standard Wikipedia FF article, see the other FF articles, the FA ones. We've made our stand, you've made yours. What should go, should go. What stays, stays. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 15:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is in those entries isn't speculation or rumour. It is true that Sony have said that FF13 being exclusive is under discussion, that is a fact and it's verifiable it is also relevant. It is true that the only thing that Square have said is that the FF13 series will include titles that will be on a range of different platforms. That is verifiable, relevant to the article and the sub-heading and is worthy of note. You even say yourself that MOST FF development sections contain citations from developers themselves, well most doesn't mean all, and this has one citation from square and one direct link to a quote from the president of Sony Computer Entertainment France who says that the platform that was supposed to get FF13 as an exclusive title isn't at this point. So it seems that the thrust that your argument boils down to is that the quotes aren't to do with development or that they don't belong in the development section. I think it should stay and I am prepared to negotiate how it stays; maybe we should have a new section on the article that deals with the continuing situation around the exclusive nature of the tittle. Movellon 15:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Movellon. We already have a Manual of Style for that, and we follow that, we do not follow your ways :) Good day. — Bluerです。 ^なにか? 16:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Well in that case I think it should stay in the development section if you aren't prepare to even negotiate a way out of this then there should be no changes to the article as it stands. Movellon 16:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a consensus then.

• Not remove "I think it should stay in the development section," says Movellon. Opinion.
• Remove per unrelated to subject
• remove per opinion
• remove per not notable source unrelated to production,
• remove per following Manual of Style.

That settles it. Remove disputed content. 219.95.171.61 17:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my two cents:

• The French guy is president of Square Enix France and IS an authority of the goings-on of SE, unless otherwise corrected/contradicted by SE itself, which hasn't happened.
• However, "Exclusivity under negotiations" does not mean that it isn't exclusive, so we cannot say that it isn't exclusive. Based on all official announcements, it is still exclusive, just because they are considering other options doesn't mean that they have actually changed their plans yet.
• Information about FNC not being exclusive is irrelevant to FFXIII. It belongs in FNC's article, not here.

--—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 19:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the disputed passages were fine as they were and I think they should be re-instated. I think that the two people who want them removed have been a bit too quick off the mark and bit too eager to push this through. There needs to be reference at least to the fact that exclusivity is under discussion which was what the entry basically said. So it is far to early to call consensus on this subject as clearly there isn't and as movellon said the bit about Sony France should stay, I don't think the bit about FNC should though and that belongs in another section. I also like his idea of having a separate heading to contain the bit that some want removed, that seems like a nice compromise. I think some people on here are being a little bit gung ho about removing parts of the article. 90.195.154.128 21:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the statment from 90.195.154.128 but I think that the FNC could be left there as well. I also think that a section on the ongoing exclusivity is a great idea movellon, I would support that. 163.156.240.17 09:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Development section's appropriate for that info, creating new sections just for that exclusivity just make it a trivia. It only looks to me like movellon's making it his/her article, making suggestions as if he/she created that article. Such inappropriate etiquette. 219.95.31.65 11:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look that way to me, if anything it looks like the other two are trying to stamp their authority on the article and that’s just a subjective experience isn’t it? This isn't something that I think we should be discussing here because we can’t possibly know the real motives behind why people are doing anything and we should be responding to the suggestions without throwing accusations at people. I think that some people on here need to step back a bit and chill out. For what it’s worth it looks like Movellon’s idea of a section on the on going exclusive nature of the title is something that I think is worthy of consideration and was a rather nice compromise and at least one other person who has commented agrees.163.156.240.17 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 219.95.31.65. It is not compromise, more like blackmailing people to follow their idea. besides, the exclusivity section is useless since there's only like little info on that. really more like trivia. this is a response to a suggestion, as we "should be" doing, if you dont mind. 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.31.37 (talk)

With the greatest respect making accusations like that is really out of order in my view. Was there any need for it? Does it add anything to discussion. Sure discuss movellon's idea about another section but please don't resort to name calling or getting aggressive. I think it was a perfectly reasonable idea and from the casual outside observer it looks like some older hands are trying to bully the new comer. It's not pleasant and it's not what Wiki is about. As someone else said I think there are quite a few people on here that need to calm down a bit. 90.195.154.187 07:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

the article was okay until some people act up and want to put everything to this article like their the one doing the game. they should be patient and stop doing changes until the game realy come out. and then i'm sure editors should know what their suppose to do. exclusive or not they should just leave that out to gaming forums to discuss. milady 12:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think that anyone here is trying to WP:OWN this article, they are all just trying to improve it as they feel is appropriate. The only problem is that some of the people making changes are forgetting WP's policies and guidelines. For example, there have been WP:CIVIL, WP:TEND, WP:FAITH, WP:3RR, WP:BITE and WP:NPA violations throughout this entire issue. And these are basic principals of conduct, they should be common sense. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣΣ 15:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be a bit late but I support keeping both articles in and I also support giving the exclusive "saga" it's own section. 81.151.118.100 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Support backed =D ÷ ¿Daisen¡i? ÷ 01:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This dispute is now over in light of the recent comments directly from Square about there being NO plans to develop an FF titles for the 360. 90.195.154.20 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Exclusivity in regards to the new trailer

1UP.com apparently reports that Final Fantasy XIII is to remain a PS3 exclusive based on the trailer shown at the Square Enix 2007 Party, stating that the trailer reconfirmed this. The problem is, as anyone who has seen the trailer would already know, that the trailer doesn't reconfirm this at all. No where in the trailer, having viewed it myself, does it state 'PS3 exclusive' anywhere at all. The only thing that could be interpreted as suggesting this would be the fact that the trailer gives the playstation symbol, or rather, the trailer says 'Playstation 3'. Obviously, whether FFXIII is exclusive or not, it will be brought to the Playstation 3, so the trailer is only stating the obvious. I honestly do not know how 1UP.com drew a 'PS3 exclusive' conclusion from that trailer, and it completely misrepresents the trailer. 72.49.194.145 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Well if only the playstation logo was shown and this late in the game no announcements have been made especially at the 2007 SE party, *shrug* i dont know i'm on the fence on this one.~Corpse 16:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it is or isn't exclusive doesn't matter. The trailer says PS3, and nothing else, logic tells us that this implies exclusivity. But while it would be OR for us to make such a conclusion ourselves, citing someone else who has made that conclusion is perfectly acceptable. "Verifiability, not truth." --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 16:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You have to assess the claims of the source that you present as verifiablity, especially when it comes from ONLY one source, namely 1UP.com. I saw the trailer myself at the show and I drew a different conclusion than 1UP.com yet I am not cited in the article as they are. The trailer DOES NOT, I cannot overemphasize this, it DOES NOT ANYWHERE OR IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM declare or state that FFXIII is a PS3 exclusive title. IT SIMPLY DOESN'T. There is no need for interpretation here, neither the trailer nor the Square-Enix representatives at the event stated the game was a PS3 exclusive. When the company itself DOES NOT say this, there is no reason to turn to a second-hand source. 72.49.194.145 01:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

Also, in regards to your statement that logic tells us the contrary. Many video game titles are developed on one platform then changing to multi-platform, just because a trailer shows only one logo, doesn't mean anything. If we took your point of logic, than we should say there will never be a PC version of Grand Theft Auto 4 because thus far, we have only seen logos for the Xbox 360 and PS3, despite the fact that Dan Houser and infact, Rockstar Games, has never stated they were not developing it for the PC. 72.49.194.145 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

If you see a trailer and it ends with "for the PS3", then it is logical to assume that it is not planned for any other systems, but that's neither here nor there since that is WP:OR (and I said so in my last post). What conclusions you draw are irrelevant, as it is unpublished and not a RS. Whether 1up is a WP:RS itself is a seperate point of contention. I know nothing about it, so I can't really comment on that point, but assuming it were not a RS then just delete the mention, assuming it is a RS then my point stands. If a RS draws a conclusion, then we may post that conclusion. If you are worried about maintaining WP:NPOV, then I suppose you can say something along the lines of "1up.com reports that it is exclusive, though there is not yet official word from SE." Your example of GTA4 just verifies my point. If they have only shown logos for Xbox 360 and PS3, then logically my assumption is that those are the only platforms they are planning on releasing it on. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that it will never be on PC, I will say that as it currently stands it will not be released on PC, that isn't to say they won't port it later on. --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 04:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"When the company itself DOES NOT say this, there is no reason to turn to a second-hand source."

If this is taken into account, then maybe we shouldn't have quoted from the French Sony Executive? Just a thought. — Bluerで す。 04:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is the case then no game could ever be labled exclusive for the possibility of some PC or other port years down the line. We can only go by what was shown and what was not. The PS3 logo was shown. ~Corpse 12:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean to ignore you Corpsedust, but as for what you said, YOU ARE RIGHT. I agree with you there. 72.49.194.145 18:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Josh

As it stands 1UP isn't a reliable source and Josh does have a point that until exclusivity is confirmed it is disingenuous to include it in the article. I suggest that all editors take a step back and the section of the article be removed. 163.156.240.17 13:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(section moved to following thread to segregate topics of discussion.) --—ΔαίδαλοςΣ 15:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)