-
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.
Square Enix: PlayStation offered a better deal than Xbox for Final Fantasy 16 (windowscentral.com)
- Thread starter fermcr
- Start date
ToadMan
Member
Just think about it, they would selectively not bring one of their most popular games to Xbox but will bring Triangle Strategy ...
Series S says “Hi”.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Hello, Series S.
The little console already has games more technically ambitious than FFVII R was, that is not a factor in this particular example.
HTK
Banned
You don't want to outbid just to outbid at some point wasteful money is wasteful money. Relationships also matter, these are Japanese companies and historically they prefer to do business with each other before foreign companies.
Dr_Ifto
Member
Triangle Strategy takes a lot less to port than FF7 would. Cost vs Benefit on that one. Sony probably paid for No Gamepass, and otherwise, SE cant recoup the port cost otherwise.
Just think about it, they would selectively not bring one of their most popular games to Xbox but will bring Triangle Strategy ...
And the FF16 example I gave above where the creators of the game are frankly talking about a PC version after the six month period but not any other console(s).
If Sony can selectively ask Nvidia to block their first party published games from Geforce Now specifically on the Edge browser on Xbox, the above is not a difficult conclusion to come to at all.
ToadMan
Member
This is false.
Series S is evidently a problem for studios to support (as is X but not to the same extent).
It is effectively forcing studios to continue cross-gen development practices and MS are insisting on feature parity for Series S. Simultaneously MS is unable or unwilling to provide sufficient support for that requirement.
Some devs are simply opting not to release their products on Xbox as a result.
Oh - and that’s this thread’s TLDR too.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Last edited:
ZehDon
Gold Member
When you clearly don't know what you're talking about, might I suggest not pretending that you do?
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
We're making some big assumptions here. It's a UE4 game, UE4 is a thoroughly cross-platform engine so it wouldn't require a lot of bespoke development. The PC version can very likely be ported with minimal effort if the publisher is allowed to.
It certainly is a factor.
Perhaps you choose not to see it.
ToadMan
Member
ZehDon
Gold Member
Damn son, you straight fuckin' merced me. What a post.
Rykan
Member
It's a PS4 game.
TheTony316
Member
Makes sense.
Square gets tech and marketing support from Sony.
The FF fanbase is primarily on Playstation.
JRPG's in general just sell much better on Playstation.
Square doesn't have to deal with the Series S.
Square gets tech and marketing support from Sony.
The FF fanbase is primarily on Playstation.
JRPG's in general just sell much better on Playstation.
Square doesn't have to deal with the Series S.
kvltus lvlzvs
Banned
but I thought it was about the ssd and load times
DeltaPolarBear
Member
"console sales don't matter" is just coming back to bite Xbox. Because console sales is what third parties use to measure market access, and that directly gets used in calculating the costs of exclusivity, timed or not.
Mathematically as the market share gets more skewed, the cost to money-hat increases/decreases to infinity. The graph ends at 100% vs 0%, where one side gets all the exclusives for free. That was what happened with Sony vs Nintendo with the N64. N64 is a great machine, but there just wasn't enough market penetration and Third parties just stop bothering.
Last edited:
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
MasterCornholio
Member
I mean that's one reason console sales are important.
Which if Microsoft focused on them they could increase other numbers such as subscriptions, mtx, software sales, engagement, better deals etc.
Last edited:
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Subscriptions and mtx sales are directly linked to hardware ecosystem size. Less hardware sales means you get less of both.
Engagement is just a buzzword for saying all the casual fans have left and all we have is hardcore diehards. (Sega Dreamcast in its dying days have massive Engagement)
And that leaves "better deals", which outright paying more money. And I already pointed out that the money you need to pay would increase exponentially as hardware sales ratio gets worse. Until at some point you are paying way more than you expect to earn back. And it is downhill from there.
Mephisto40
Member
There really is no reason not to own a PS5 at this point
NeoIkaruGAF
Gold Member
It’s still an eyesore.
Even worse now that it’s actually on shelves.
Captain Toad
Banned
But, flip it. Final Fantasy is so huge in Japan, that a lot of people would have to cave and actually buy an Xbox.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Flip it again, the actual number of people who flip would not pay back the money you spent. As in, you have no idea what it takes to pay for such a deal. And SE might not see it as worth killing fanbase good will like with Tomb Raider.
Basically Xbox is not considered an option and if you force people the fans would get mad.
It takes 2 to tango and SE is not so greedy as to not realize it would be viewed as near treason by their Japanese customers.
Captain Toad
Banned
Well, someone better tell Xbox. That seems to be their game plan currently, looking at games previously planned for PlayStation that they paid billions to keep off that platform.
Ar¢tos
Member
Eh, so far they have done Playstation a favor. We'll have to wait for Starfield...
Draxon Gamer
Banned
If anyone thinks Microsoft would have paid 2/3s the cost for a Jrpg as they would for just Elder Scrolls alone you is on some powerful shit, and I demand you pass me some of it.
Microsoft currently has a big slice of the RPG market that sells under lock and key. A few Final Fantasy games may lost them a minority audience but not much of that audience was on Xbox anyway, and they got Persona and other Jrpgs under them for those people.
I'm not saying they should have abandoned it, but from a business point of view it doesn't make sense to pay much for Final Fantasy.
Microsoft currently has a big slice of the RPG market that sells under lock and key. A few Final Fantasy games may lost them a minority audience but not much of that audience was on Xbox anyway, and they got Persona and other Jrpgs under them for those people.
I'm not saying they should have abandoned it, but from a business point of view it doesn't make sense to pay much for Final Fantasy.
Unless you like Wrpgs.
Last edited:
ToadMan
Member
Exactly - which is why it could be ported to series S while next gen games cannot.
At least, not in a way that is economically viable.
Rykan
Member
All the games being discussed here are either last gen ports, or games that run on last gen systems including the Switch.
thatsafakewebsitebro
Member
That exclusivity clause is most likely for a PC release. Given how SE is operating in terms of their marquee games, FF 16 is gonna be PS exclusive and then a PC release. I highly doubt an Xbox version will be coming out.
Aenima
Member
At the end of any FF16 trailer that mantions the exclusivity time, they dont mentioned PC, they mention "Other Platforms". If Square dont want to do a port for Xbox after the 6 month exclusivity, thats on Square.
Last edited:
NeverYouMind
Member
Final Fantasy is so passe after two sets of subpar installments. Forspoken was also a huge stinker. Square Enix is slacking these days.
If it was something like Xenoblade Chronicles by Monolith Soft on the other hand, that would be a terrible call by Microsoft.
If it was something like Xenoblade Chronicles by Monolith Soft on the other hand, that would be a terrible call by Microsoft.
Last edited:
Captain Toad
Banned
Hurrrrr okay.
Because Xenoblade Chronicles is such a bigger seller than Final Fantasy.
And why would Microsoft be paying for a Nintendo first-party game?
Last edited:
Captain Toad
Banned
They didn't necessarily bid less than Sony. They just didn't bid enough to make it worthwhile.
The amount Microsoft would have had to pay to make the game not come out on PS5, would have had to been a ridiculous amount, since the vast majority of their target audience is there.
NeverYouMind
Member
Something like reading classes is necessary for you to understand the meaning of the post in your Nintendo obsessed brain.
Nydius
Member
Precisely this.
Microsoft would have had to give SE truckloads upon truckloads of money because the sales of SE’s RPGs on Xbox are utterly abysmal compared to PlayStation (and even Switch). I brought the numbers up in the other thread on this topic but the closest Xbox ever came was with FF13 back on the 360, and that was outsold 2:1 on PS3. All other FF games have sold worse by a much larger margin. Crisis Core Reunion sold more on Switch than it did on all Xbox platforms combined.
Microsoft would have needed to give up enough money to cover the potential lost sales of cutting out SE’s largest player base.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
or offer enough money /support just to secure an Xbox release.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
Considering the lack of games lately and hoe this would have looked, and the amount of cash thrown elsehere, a paltry billion or 2 would have been well spent.
MasterCornholio
Member
I don't think they can justify spending 2 billion if it barely moves the needle for them. They would probably spend that on something that would push their systems like crazy. I'm not sure what game is worth that though.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
I don't know how they justify tying up 70 billion on Activision....... they could have bought several other companies and tied up AAA games like this for years.
MasterCornholio
Member
ABK is a huge multiplatform punisher. There's plenty of benefits to acquiring them like owning one of the largest FPS franchises. Then there's all the IPs that ABK owns. Plus King is pretty huge in the mobile world.
Exclusion would have been applied just like eoth Bethesda and they could have given Xbox multiple selling points.
THE DUCK
voted poster of the decade by bots
I know it has other benefits that helped sell the acquisition, but so would selling more Xboxes and getting more people on game pass.
They could have done this instead:
Brought the series X price down to $299 U.S. (10 Billion)
Sold the Series S for $149. (5 Billion)
Launched a dedicated handheld for $299 (10 Billion)
Exclusivity for FF (2 Billion)
Exclusivity for GTA VI (10 billion)
Tied up a crap ton of Ubisoft games (5 Billion)
Tied up most EA franchises (5 Billion)
Still had money to buy some more studios (20 Billion)
What's the return you ask?
- Far more game pass subscribers
- Higher overall market penetration
- Higher overall xbox game sales and add on sales
- Increased user base attracts more third party development and leads to more revenue from 30% cut
- Well positioned going into the next gen
While it's probably true that Activision would get them more immediate revenue, I wasn't under the impression the goal was short term.
Last edited:
MasterCornholio
Member
With a lot of those it's probably because 3rd parties don't want to foreclose PlayStation. They probably want to maintain their brand image on that platform and the sales as well.
As for the price cuts they are already losing money on the X and the S. Plus product dumping isn't allowed so there's a limit to how low they can price their products.
The handheld is a strange point because they would be competing with Nintendo. Something that I can't see Xbox doing in the traditional sense.
Dick Jones
Gold Member
The goal is short term because if it was long term the moves made wouldn't resemble get rich quick schemes. Proper management and a long term vision would place Xbox competitive with its actual competition. Otherwise the waste of the Spencer years continues.
Last edited:
YeulEmeralda
Member
I remember when Vesperia DE was announced at an Xbox event. The crowd went silent.
Fredrik
Member
MasterCornholio
Member
I mean they are worth over 70 billion plus they have a lot of studios. Not to mention they own plenty of IPs.
I honestly can't see them being small and only releasing games on a couple of platforms.
Last edited:
cireza
Member
Woopah
Member
Enough money to secure an Xbox release means outbidding Sony, which will be very difficult to do. SE and Sony have clearly entered into a long term understanding regaridng major games in the FF brand.
Ar¢tos
Member
But even ignoring the exclusivity deal, if they wanted to release it multiplatform we would have either a 2025 release date for all 4 versions to be ready (ps5, pc, xsx, xss) or Ps5 now, PC in about 9 months (they said 6 months is not enough to get the port to a decent quality level) and Xbox versions in 2025.
Would the Xbox sales in 2025 even justify the cost of porting, debugging, testing and optimizing the 2 Xbox versions of the game? Even with MS paying 110-120% of the cost? (Square needs to have profit, they are not a charity)
Or would the Xbox sales justify what MS would have to pay for a 2 year delay in the case of same day release?
And in the end, it would add Zero value to Xbox, even if it made a small profit.
Last edited:
