Check out the latest episode of the Black Oni podcast! In this episode, we talk about cultural differences, and how those change the way games are made.
After its latest games didn't meet sales targets, Square Enix is going multiplatform but the company's track record isn't convincing.
Square Enix been multiplatform for decades, a few exclusively-deals doesn't make them any less multiplatform.
Nor is selling their games on a console with only 25 million install base going to bring their sales to where they hope they will be... Unless they somehow manage to dumb down FF7 trilogy to work on switch, they aren't going to have much luck. They already released it on PC, after all.
It kind of does, giving preference to a certain platform by timed exclusivity. Console ports generally feel superior. Legend of mana PC port extremely broken
Sega
It doesn’t when square themselves didn’t want to fund the development of remake. It’s only after the success of the 1st they realized their mistake but now contract is signed. If it wasn’t for Sony there would be no FF7 remakes. Same goes for silent hill 2 with Konami. They don’t want to fund AAA budget. Companies like PlayStation and Nintendo get blamed when in reality they are saving some of these franchises
Remember sega didn’t want to fund bayonetta and epic games didn’t want to fund another gears of war. It’s easy to blame console makers but they are the ones taking the risk and paying huge upfront costs without seeing the final product. FF7 remake trilogy won’t be coming to Xbox now or in the future. PlayStation and PC is what square signed up for. Sony paid them more than they would make from Xbox sales.
I just wonder when everyone is going to demand that the Square Enix exclusives with Nintendo come to PS and Xbox. Or it's just the PS exclusives that matter lol
I'd love for the nintendo exclusives to come to pc or ps5. They'd actually be playable then.
Raven
Exactly and that’s where square enix does more exclusive than any other platform. Gaming is square has always been very unrealistic with their sales expectations. Remember when tomb raider reboot sold 7.5 million and square said it wasn’t enough. They need to spend less on development and have more realistic expectations from sales.
And those thinking games being not on Xbox makes a difference don’t understand we have a decade plus of data showing square enix games having less than 20% of their multiplatform sales on Xbox (final fantasy series) and Nintendo consoles aren’t strong enough to run any current games. Nintendo switch should be as strong as Xbox one x atleast but we all know that’s most likely won’t happen
@raven
thing is, as neutral said in their comm, the switch isn't strong enough to run flagship SE games
i think what SE does is, it makes unique games for switch only so that it has something for that console too. Thats where all the "underlined sans" rpgs go to mostly
maybe things will change when Swtich 2 drops cuz that's gonna be as strong as ps4 afaik from the rumors flying around
@Scissorman
Your point is valid enough but when the icon of this company is limited to one console in timed-exclusivity, it means the company has crossed the line. By some degree at least
All things aside, Square itself stated "aggressive multiplatform strategies" so we all know what it's talking about
Then the headline should read "Square To Drop Exclusively Deals in Pursuit of A Sweeping Multiplatform Strategy". I don't recall this argument when Square Enix released Bravely Default, Octopath Traveler, and Triangle Strategy on one platform. And even if FF is the icon, not all of its titles have gone to one platform. We're talking about three games, one of which is already on PC. Did Square suddenly go 'multiplatform' after it released subsequent Tomb Raider sequels on more than just the Xbox? It's just a silly way of putting it.
SE needs to go all in optimization. Broken PC ports won't help its case, especially with big releases like mainline Final Fantasy
It's actually simple. What doesn't inspire confidence is Square allocating their budgets on the wrong projects such as Forspoken, Avengers, Babylons Fall and Foamstars.
Square has always been multiplatform since PS3/360 days which 80 % of their games are. People kick up a fuss over PS exclusivity but not Nintendo which has more exclusive projects console exclusive from Square.
FF16 has done ok but not enough to fix the blunders that the past mistakes Square has made with some of their projects. FF7 Rebirth is unclear we'll see a PC release for sure so it's hard to say so far not as good as they would of liked.
Then again unrealistic expectations. If it weren't for Sony these games would at least had another 2 years development time. So some people need to be realistic in that regard.
It's the blunders that set those expectations so high. If you remove those from the equation, I bet the sales numbers would be more than stellar. Square believes it's okay to release a pile of risky, middling, garbage because the big boys will ultimately subsidize the cost. Don't worry if Forspoken sells poorly, FF16 will surely sell 10 million copies to balance that right out. Oh wait, it only sold like 4 million. Well that's a disaster. Meanwhile games that sell 2 million units with comparable budgets are deemed successful.
I would also add that FFXVI, which I loved has a hint to one of their biggest problems: the number 16.
It's a great franchise, but that's all they've become known for. Dragon Quest is my favorite all time series but it's like they don't know what to do outside of those two IPs.
Valve never makes trilogies. The idea is that they don't want to become stagnant. Gabe Newell hates the number 3.
I can't imagine their talent wouldn't want to try a new RPG.
Square Enix just really need to revise its expectations. Maybe consider a change in strategy on dev end as well. Multiplat will help for sure but only good games that are marketed well will sell
Ubisoft says they are focusing on two "core verticals," and that's to return as a leader in the open world genre, and live service games.
Calling Ubisoft a leader in open world gaming at any point in time would be like calling Dollar General a leader in retail.
Well, to be fair, they did pump out good open world games before. It was used as a template so much that people now know what it means when you say it's like an Ubi open world collectahon.
What though? I can't think of one game they had where I liked anything about it. Atleast since the ps3/360 Gen
If they have never been the leader in open world gaming, then explain me this: why does almost every open world game follow the same tired old Ubisoft open world formula?
Follow the Leader.
I don't think they were ever the leader tbh. I've never really cared for any of their open world games. I do wanna try watch dogs 2 because it looks like it's set in San Fran. Looked interesting
In a town hall that took place on Monday, Square Enix president Takashi Kiryu reportedly confirmed imminent layoffs in the U.S. and Europe.
@Outside_ofthe_Box,
So that Microsoft can close down the studio after doing nothing with them? Right...
Sad but true. It's the consequence of a shift in player habits, massive overhead, and out of control budgets across the industry.
What did NA and EU did anyways? Just translate or something? I would say it might help them get back to there roots but DK.
Actually, you are correct they play a hand in localization especially in Europe with the many languages. That and marketing.
