@ zerokku

First of all, thanks for calling me a fanboy, accusing me of missing the point and saying how my post reeked of ignorance when all I've tried to do is present and defend an argument to you.[/sarcasm]

You and Kanno are wrong - Square owed nothing to Nintendo fans in 1997 because Sony created a system that could facilitate them to make the kind of games they wanted to create. Just like Sony did again with Blu-Ray capacity and other technical innovations making it more feasible for larger games like the FF series has always been. But the main reason why is the disparate extent to which Sony owning fans contributed to Square's success, especially when compared to Nintendo (-only) owning fans.

It's during the so-called "Playstation era", that square almost went bankrupt and wouldn't have survived if not for merging with the juggernaut Enix. Sony fanboys really made square an empire eh?
You obviously need a history lesson. Even Wolf Kanno would agree with me that the PSOne FF's made Square a household name, and led to an era on that console where they put out a whole host of masterpieces, many of which are qualified candidates for best game ever made in the various sub-genres of RPG's (Final Fantasy Tactics, Xenogears, Vagrant Story, etc). This allowed them to go on to make movies (which bankrupted them) and even come into partnerships with groups like Disney. Their status today would not have been possible without the work that came about from their partnership with Sony.

Lastly, I find it very sad that

The only reason I owned the systems is because they were the winners of the console wars, and therefore more games would come out on said systems.
The Dreamcast had phenomenal games that innovated the medium, yet you would have precluded yourself from owning one for the sole reason they didn't win "the console wars". To me, the winner of a console war is the company that can use its technology the best to produce the best games, not sales, and I find it depressing that so many gamers today allow business statistics to drive their experiences in gaming.

Actually your logic is flawed because Nintendo is already clearly the winner, and they may very well end up with the most games, yet it would be hard to argue that their library is, or will be better than, either the 360 or PS3's.

Quote Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
This is a business, and despite recent great strides, Sony is still lagging behind the other two consoles. Its a better deal for Square to make it multi-platform and they have a better chance of higher sales by releasing it on both systems simultaneously and with the same quality. Squenix would be stupid to show favoritism.
Both you and zerokku are diluting and generalizing a plethora of economic concepts into "bigger install base = more potential sales". One such concept your mitigating is brand name building. More PS3 owners bought MGS4 than the total PC, 360, and PS3 users who bought Far Cry 2, despite both being extraordinary games in their respective genres (if you could even say MGS has a genre). That's accountable to a number of reasons - it shows off what the PS3 is capable of, its a continuing partnership, etc.

It's not unreasonable to believe that many PS3 users who are new to Final Fantasy will opt to buy another game like God of War III (probably going to release around the same time) because they'd rather see what their purchase can do.

The question is, can the 360 base offset those lost sales? Considering the Halo/Madden frat boy crowd that makes up most of its user base, it's hard to say.