Chittagong
Gold Member
BuddyC said:
You are actually right. Reps aint told shit, and actually read web for news, especially at Nintendo.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Final Fantasy / Dragon Quest no longer Sony exclusive?
- Thread starter Blimblim
- Start date
You are actually right. Reps aint told shit, and actually read web for news, especially at Nintendo.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
eXxy said:
Thanks EXxy, that makes more sense. IE Xbox 360 gamers may be more online oriented beacuse MS is pushing it much harder, means FFXI would be a worthwhile port.
That comment shows nothing to me to mean their big titles will be multiplatform.
Have you guys read the actual translation? It doesn't even mention FF or DQ, they want to focus on multiplataform that does not mean that FF13 or DQ9 will flirt around.
We could see future Saga games, Front Mission games, Full Metal Alchemist games and FF spinoffs go multiplataform, but the major games will most likely stay.
I believe is not 8% but 12%, still that gives Sony a say in many SE decisions look at it this way:
If a sickness spreads to 8% percent of your body, lets say your right leg, and this sickness doesn't let you move the leg so when you decide to move around you can't cuz a part of your body even as little has 8% percent doesn't let you. Its the same case, Sony will always have a say in SE decisions, even if they're not big part of it they're still part of them.
We could see future Saga games, Front Mission games, Full Metal Alchemist games and FF spinoffs go multiplataform, but the major games will most likely stay.
I believe is not 8% but 12%, still that gives Sony a say in many SE decisions look at it this way:
If a sickness spreads to 8% percent of your body, lets say your right leg, and this sickness doesn't let you move the leg so when you decide to move around you can't cuz a part of your body even as little has 8% percent doesn't let you. Its the same case, Sony will always have a say in SE decisions, even if they're not big part of it they're still part of them.
Outdoor Miner
Member
inthezone said:
So what you're saying is Sony -having invested in 8%- can stop a decision that a majority (read: >50%) of shareholders are for?
Horrible, horrible comparison.
inthezone said:
what kind of retarted anology is this :lol :lol 8% shares doesn't immediately equal to 8% voting rights.. there might be a guy on the board with 51% shares and that could give him like 50+% voting rights making him the only decision maker.
ea has 20% share in ubi and even they can't make any decisions for ubi.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
inthezone said:
Dude. 8% is not a controlling interest. Ergo, Sony has no say in the decision making process. SE will do what it needs to do to maximize brand strength, market penetration and profit, and the best way of tending to that is to make its products available to as large a part of the market as possible; if the SE board of directors would choose supposed comradship over sound business tactics, they'd be in deep trouble with the remaining share holders.
Doom_Bringer
Banned
AltogetherAndrews said:
dude why aren't they making FFXII for Xbox or GC? Xbox sucks in Japan but they can easily make profit with the game here in NA. The same could be said about all Square Enix's PS2 titles! Xbox is big in NA and Europe why not put those titles on Xbox?
I think Diffense put it the best...
Diffense said:
Before the start of this gen Wada and Sakaguchi made similar comments about GC etc. Don't believe it until they announce something.
FFXI on Xbox will bomb cause it's an ancient port and sadly Xbox360 might do bad in Japan and they will be back to square one, taking Sony money hats and putting the top franchises on PS3.
TheJollyCorner
Member
Diffense said:
BINGO! Just what I was about to post.
I can still remember Sony supporters being worried in 2000 when Square made a similar statement and all the sudden "FFX will be released on XBox too!"
Then again, this IS a completely different generation, so anything goes... but, like RR6, I'll believe it when it's 'official'.
Suburban Cowboy
Member
it does make sense to go multi platform though...
Games are going to become much more expensive to produce with every lead forward of technology, there's no denying this. It is possible that with the rising costs of production going multi-plat with once-exclusive titles will still only garner profits equal to those earned the previous generation
to put it simply, gaining the MAXIMUM profits still may not change the net-worth of a company due to production costs
Games are going to become much more expensive to produce with every lead forward of technology, there's no denying this. It is possible that with the rising costs of production going multi-plat with once-exclusive titles will still only garner profits equal to those earned the previous generation
to put it simply, gaining the MAXIMUM profits still may not change the net-worth of a company due to production costs
Luscious LeftFoot
Member
Jonnyram said:
A port of a game that's two years old.
The re-release of one of the most critically and commercially successful games of all time with next gen graphics some 8-10 years later. Are you kidding me? I'm not a big fan of FFVII, but come on!
Dragona Akehi
Retired
Jonnyram said:
Well as much as I hate FFVII and it's total lack of anything remotely resembling quality in any area, take a look at the sales of the Dragon Quest remakes that get pumped out from time to time. So one could say there is an "interest" in that sort of thing.
Course, Dragon Quest games are actually worth playing, so there is a difference.
OK, this isn't getting anywhere.
I'm asking why I, as a gamer, should be more interested in an FFVII remake than an upgraded port of FFXI. I don't care about the sales... I want to know why I should be more excited about a game whose story I already know, than a game I haven't even beaten 50% of yet.
The point I'm trying to make is that neither of these games is new...
I'm asking why I, as a gamer, should be more interested in an FFVII remake than an upgraded port of FFXI. I don't care about the sales... I want to know why I should be more excited about a game whose story I already know, than a game I haven't even beaten 50% of yet.
The point I'm trying to make is that neither of these games is new...
DCharlie
Banned
of course - but look at this from SE's point of view.
Cost to play FFVII for Mrs Charlie = 7800 yen
Cost so far of playing FFXI for Mrs Charlie = 6800 yen + 36 months at 1480 = 60080 yen
That's a big difference. Of course there are ongoing costs, but with around 400,000 players in Japan alone, that's bringing in a cool 592,000,000 yen revenue a month.
Popularity or not, i get the feeling we are going to see SE try to lock people into online. Hell, Derge of C has an online component - it makes more sense for them to concentrate on getting games that trap people into giving SE guaranteed income.
I'd expect DQ to move to online very soon in order to pull in a whole new slew of online gamers (and for SE huge bags of loot).
Why not make a FF7 based MMORPG? Now that would be interesting!
Jonnyram said:
I think the question was answered in some posts, in my view. FFXI is still here, now. I mean that it's here in the current gen, and people are playing it all the time - way more people than are currently playing FFVII, for instance. It's readily available on PC and PS2, and the 360 version is hardly any real advancement at all due to keeping it compatible throughout. FFVII is from a bygone era, however, and it's not as readily available, people forgot a lot of things in the years past, and it badly needs a graphic remake. Not only that, but the translation needs work and with all these FFVII side games it's the perfect opportunity to flesh out some sidestories add in new quests and make the game look nice aside its new brothers. Personally, I would not be happy in FFVII was just a graphical overhaul.
But that's just my opinion. I wasn't a fan of FFXI, just because my friends never played it. And that's the only real reason I play MMORPGs
So I'm biased.DCharlie said:
Something to do with static pre-rendered backgrounds and hoof hands that makes me shudder
I mean, it's nice to have the relic - I own ol' FFVII on both PSX and PC - but I just, eh, ya know... wanna see it with a new shade of paint. In General, I'm a big fan of remakes if the generations are far enough apart. I like them, I don't know why...
...interestingly enough, I HATE movie remakes.
DCharlie said:
Seriously. I know we talk about graphics 'cause that's the only thing we've seen, but if it's just that and no other changes you can count me out.
Sega go third party and stop making consoles? No way, it'll never happen.
Link in a Namco fighter? No way, it'll never happen.
Enix and Squaresoft merging? No way, it'll never happen.
... if this current generation has taught me anything, it's that history and logic have absolutely zero bearing on what happens with videogames in the future.
ps: The XBox is the only current-gen system I don't have, and it'll take a lot more than this to get me wanting a 360.
pps: FF7's soundtrack is in more need of an overhaul than its graphics.
Link in a Namco fighter? No way, it'll never happen.
Enix and Squaresoft merging? No way, it'll never happen.
... if this current generation has taught me anything, it's that history and logic have absolutely zero bearing on what happens with videogames in the future.
ps: The XBox is the only current-gen system I don't have, and it'll take a lot more than this to get me wanting a 360.
pps: FF7's soundtrack is in more need of an overhaul than its graphics.
Agent X
Member
Borys said:
That's because Sony is the only console manufacturer that has good, long running third-party exclusives to lose in the first place.
What worthwhile, long-running third-party game series are on Nintendo or Microsoft systems that aren't already on Sony systems and/or personal computers? I sure can't think of any. I don't exactly see Sony bothering to make an effort to bid for the rights to the next Nightcaster game. :lol
Die Squirrel Die
Member
Are ports really as easy as all that to make, or is this a bit of an urban myth?
'Cause I'm thinking, if they are then why haven't more companies pursued them further. Rising development costs aside, if multiplatform strategies really are so hugely beneficial, surely every company would have followed them to maximise profit.
It strikes me that maybe the benefits of exclusivity are greater than some people are giving credit for. Anyone with a deeper insight on this question?
'Cause I'm thinking, if they are then why haven't more companies pursued them further. Rising development costs aside, if multiplatform strategies really are so hugely beneficial, surely every company would have followed them to maximise profit.
It strikes me that maybe the benefits of exclusivity are greater than some people are giving credit for. Anyone with a deeper insight on this question?
Die Squirrel Die said:
It depends on the platform you're porting to. Obviously, if the base system you're porting cord from is significantly more powerful, that makes a port more difficult. If the system you're porting to is difficult to make games for, that'd contribute to how easy it is to make a port.
But in general, the money you put toward a port, especially for high profile games, is going to be worth it because it's less than just making a brand new game for that platform.
The Abominable Snowman
Member
fix'ddog$ said:
But I agree, and still, I doubt SE will not give Sony an exclusitivity window on the FF games, but who knows if Nintendo or Microsoft (Especially MS, as hungry for titles as they are) would cut SE a deal for a version on their respective consoles?
MS is already waiving licensing fees for exclusive games.
I really doubt S-E will port any FF or DQ (main ones) games to either Xbox 360 or Revolution. That said, I can't understand why some people believe porting the titles would be anything but benefitial to S-E. I guess the best example of this kind of strategy working would be the GTA series on both PS2 and Xbox. They maintained PS2 as the principal target, and 9 months to a year later, they ported the game to Xbox and PC. GTA was quite successful on Xbox selling more than a million units. Simply put, FF has the drawing power to make this kind of impact. I have no doubt it'd benefit S-E.
Die Squirrel Die
Member
IJoel said:
GTA is a bigger franchise though, and it's a bigger franchise in the Xbox's strongest territory. While FF is successful in the US and Europe, it's single strongest territory is the one where MS are really, really far behind in. And DQ, it barely has a presence in the US and is non-existant in Europe.
Die Squirrel Die said:
Many Xbox RPGs have performed really well. Simply put, most popular high profile games perform as good in Xbox as in the PS2 (obviously relative to their respective userbases.) Fable, Morrowind and SW: KotOR are all million sellers, or near million selling status. SW: KotOR2 has sold more than 600K units. This is in NA alone.
I find it ridiculous to believe there's not a significant amount of profit to be made out of releasing such an extremely popular RPG like FF overseas for all platforms. Even moreso when you take in consideration that development costs would be reduced significantly due to the fact that it'd be a port. Also, it would not only contribute towards more revenue for the publisher, but it'd expand the userbase. Considering the huge market base PS2 has, it's hard to think the FF franchise would grow significantly more (of course, it could happen.)
This is the issue at hand. If the PS3 can keep that same market share, I don't think there would be any problem with keeping FF and DQ as Sony-exclusive, but we still don't know much about the PS3 and can't really say that it's going to be a runaway success. I think if the pricepoint were announced, it might help a lot of developers make a decision, but at the moment Kutaragi seems to be scaring people off with claims that it will be expensive.IJoel said:
DCharlie
Banned
hold on, where does it say this ?
the article is saying that the user base is split between High-end users and Low-maintenance users.
i.e : the low maintenance user = people who buy offline dragon quest
vs the high end user = FFXI / MMORPG user who is in for the long term, needs constant support from the company but also generates continuous revenue for the firm.
I dunno - am i missing something?
actually - i guess the statement is still true - but the use of High END vs low END users makes it sound like a different kettle of fish (ie: Oh you play on your 486 whilst i play on my Cray!)
the article is saying that the user base is split between High-end users and Low-maintenance users.
i.e : the low maintenance user = people who buy offline dragon quest
vs the high end user = FFXI / MMORPG user who is in for the long term, needs constant support from the company but also generates continuous revenue for the firm.
I dunno - am i missing something?
actually - i guess the statement is still true - but the use of High END vs low END users makes it sound like a different kettle of fish (ie: Oh you play on your 486 whilst i play on my Cray!)
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3142539DCharlie said:
I don't know who's translation is correct. 1UP's transalation does not seem to indicate that he's talking about multiplatform releases at all. He seems to be saying that different platforms will attract different types of users and hence require different types of games.
That's not really a valid assumption IMO. It will be hard to differentiate the X360 and PS3 userbases. They should have very similar profiles.
official translation:
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/news/20050804p2a00m0et006000c.html
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/news/20050804p2a00m0et006000c.html
sangreal said:
lol. why is it that the MSN translation is to be considered official?? LOL. Thats like using kutaragi as your source for x360 info.
Also, in that translation which you posted, there isn't a single word about multiplatform FF/DQ. That is the view of the MSN site. Official my anus.
Doube D said:
Because they are the source in the first place?
Original source: http://www.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/game/gamenews/news/20050803org00m300121000c.html
Translated: http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/entertainment/news/20050804p2a00m0et006000c.html
I never said otherwise.
You sir, are fucking retarded. All of the other sites are just translations of the japanese Mainichi site. This is the translation from the english Mainichi site. Thus it is the official translation of the article.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Seems to be like the newspaper latched on to what they thought would sell papers, and 1up had a more even translation... certainly two differnt pictures from the same article. I'll take 1up's over a newspaper translation anyday.
Edit:
Not to mention newspapers tend to "Get it wrong" a whole lot more often then specialized sites.
Edit:
Not to mention newspapers tend to "Get it wrong" a whole lot more often then specialized sites.