Top

Ranma1

Contributor
CRank: 9Score: 0

Would Square Enix be better off if they were split up ?

The value of SE now is less than the what the value of Squaresoft was when it went bankrupt.

This is from Kotaku: "With Square Enix posting losses in its latest earnings, former Square Co. boss Hisashi Suzuki thought this would be good a time as any to kick the company while it is down.

Via Twitter, Suzuki didn't hold back, claiming that the total value of publicly traded stock is not higher than it was before Square joined with Enix. According to Suzuki, "The merger was a complete failure. There's no vision for the future." He ended his tweet by pointing to Square Enix's recent losses, adding that development costs were heavy."

Heres What I think are the benefits if Square and Enix became separate again:

3. More competition. As the cow racers will tell you, when they have 1 cow, its harder to get the job done. When they have 2, its easier. More competition means higher quality, and more attention to what customers want.

2. Smaller teams means more creative and innovative games, less management and red tape problems. I once read an interview where Sakaguchi himself said that Square Enix's problems happen because the development teams are too large, the creators have less chance to do what they want. Most developers would probably agree with him on that. People have more fear of getting fired in a big team than a small one where people know each other very well. From wikipedia: "Independence is another advantage of owning a small business. One survey of small business owners showed that 38% of those who left their jobs at other companies said their main reason for leaving was that they wanted to be their own bosses.[citation needed] Freedom to operate independently is a reward for small business owners. In addition, many people desire to make their own decisions, take their own risks, and reap the rewards of their efforts. Small business owners have the satisfaction of making their own decisions within the constraints imposed by economic and other environmental factors"

1. Customer focused/market focused: as many Square Enix fans will tell you. One of the problems with them these days is that they don't listen to their fans. Fans want KH3, they give us spin offs, fans want FF 7 remake, and FFvs 13, they give us FF13-2. In order to survive, most small businesses must adopt a narrow market focus. In doing so,they can develop a premium reputation for serving that narrow market. That was Squaresoft and Enix's biggest qualities, they stuck to their customers.

So what is your opinion?

The story is too old to be commented.
Valenka1348d ago (Edited 1348d ago )

Quite honestly, I don't know what to take from this blog. Are you suggesting that Square Enix divide themselves into two separate companies with individual production teams within each? Or are you suggesting that they divide the single company into different teams? Seeing as how the latter is already done, with nearly every company, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

As common sense would dictate, of course a lot more would get done and quality would be enhanced with separate companies...but as of late, Square Enix hasn't produced anything so far under the standards of quality where splitting into two individual companies would be necessary.

For a small example, give a gander at Hitman and Tomb Raider. Look at what's been accomplished and the overwhelming hype for each. The Final Fantasy series, where some instalments were highly criticised, were overall successful. How about Thief? Non-stop praise there.

I really wish you went into more detail as to how what you're suggesting would be beneficial, instead of just stating the factual common sense. Don't take this as me being rude, as that isn't my intention. It's just that all you really did was just quote statements and reiterate points made by other people. There's not much substance here.

Ranma11348d ago (Edited 1348d ago )

No, to just "unmerge" and become 2 seperate companies again.

Am sure they can sell of the Squaresoft part and Enix parts of their businesses, and then whoever buys it renames it Squaresoft and Enix

caseh1348d ago

Burn the SquareEnix CEOs at the stake for herecy, sell the company as a whole to EA or Activision (Probably EA, lesser of two evils I think) and allow them to release Final Fantasy 2012 with one year increments every year without fail.

Its important they make regular press releases every few days in the run up to the next release, in this case FF2013. These should showcase how much the AI has improved from last year and how it will be a completely new experience, the reality will be a slightly tweaked graphics engine with new menus to make sure people don't realise its the same game as last year.

This has worked for EA since 1991 and the fans are still loyal and loving every game they release, but only if its the same as last year with a new cover and the year has increased by 1.

Meep1348d ago (Edited 1348d ago )

I think the splitting of the 2 corporations is a bit extreme, companies split to put more focus on their area of expertise, and from what I got from the interwebz both Square and Enix were not doing well in the past. So it was a favorable option to merge. Since they were not doing so hot back then, I cant really see them surviving if they splitting up. They just need to get their act together. I mean they have a hell of a lot of potential especially when they bought eidos. With a ton of franchises under their belt they have a better chance of making a come back than other video game corporations.

Godmars2901348d ago

Where Square itself is in no finical shape to sand on its own, Enix has Dragon Warrior and Edios Tombraider and its other properties.

And still have to ask who's going to save Square. Step it back from its cinematic focus and back to the balance between game and cutscene it touched on in it SNES days.

pixelsword1348d ago

Nah, with so much time and people leaving and whatnot, who's to say that either company will do well now?

Show all comments (13)
The story is too old to be commented.