One thing to be aware of, is that the classic FFs 6-9 are open whereas X is very linear (platform limitations).
In that sense it doesn't fully represent what FF is. BUT 6-9 have aged quite a lot now so I think going straight into them will be tough.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Theory: Reason Square Enix kept Final Fantasy on Sony Systems in the past
- Thread starter IbizaPocholo
- Start date
In that sense it doesn't fully represent what FF is. BUT 6-9 have aged quite a lot now so I think going straight into them will be tough.
True. Their anti-JRPG propaganda this gen has made them abandoned first party JRPGs like forever.
If they would ever make an role-playing game it's going to be different. That's what they aim for with their games nowadays to be different. Action based RPGs.
I don't know why you're assuming I'm talking about a port to 3DS button here. with access to the PC source, making a port would be simpler than ports from the systems I mentioned (save for any issues that might crop up with how the game was programmed for the PS1 cpu, if there is any). the 3DS cpu is capable enough. effort is inherent for any port, but I'm not seeing it as something that's insurmountable nor not worthwhile.
I mean if you really want to listwar this is one you'll lose badly. Just looking at JRPGs on their Gen 8+ platforms:
Nintendo
- Codename S.T.E.A.M. (3DS)
- Ever Oasis (3DS)
- Fire Emblem: Three Houses (NSW)
- Fire Emblem Awakening (3DS)
- Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valencia (3DS)
- Fire Emblem Fates: Birthright / Conquest / Revelation (3DS)
- Fossil Fighters: Frontier (3DS)
- Mario & Luigi: Bowser's Inside Story + Biwser Jr.'s Journey (3DS)
- Mario & Luigi: Dream Team (3DS)
- Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam (3DS)
- Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga + Bower's Minions (3DS)
- Miitopia (3DS)
- Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Gates to Infinity (3DS)
- Pokémon Omega Ruby / Alpha Salphire (3DS)
- Pokémon Sun / Moon (3DS)
- Pokémon Super Mystery Dungeon (3DS)
- Pokémon X / Y (3DS)
- Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE (Wii U)
- Town (NSW)
- Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (NSW)
- Xenoblade Chronicles 2: Torna - The Golden Country (NSW)
- Xenoblade Chronicles 3D (n3DS)
- Xenoblade Chronicles X (Wii U)
- Bravely Default (3DS)
- Bravely Second: End Layer (3DS)
- Dragon Quest VII: Fragments of the Forgotten Past (3DS)
- Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King (3DS)
- Dragon Quest Builders (NSW)
- Fantasy Life (3DS)
- LBX Little Battlers Experience (3DS)
- Monster Hunter Stories (3DS)
- Octopath Traveler (NSW)
- The World End with You: Final Remix (NSW)
- Yo-Kai Watch (3DS)
- Yo-Kai Watch 2: Bony Spirits / Fleshy Souls (3DS)
- Yo-Kai Watch 2: Psychic Specters (3DS)
- Yo-Kai Watch Blasters: Red Cat Corps / Blue Dog Squad (3DS)
- Bloodborne (PS4)
- Freedom Wars (Vita)
- Oreshika: Tainted Bloodlines (Vita)
- Soul Sacrifice (Vita)
- Soul Sacrifice Delta (Vita)
- Nioh (PS4)
And that's being pretty lenient on the Sony side letting in their MH and Souls clones while leaving out Nintendo edge cases (Zelda, Paper Mario, Culdcept, etc).
Last edited:
I believe it celebrates its 20th anniversary next year. Square is probably planning something.
Sony looks more quality over quantity imo, and you forgot horizon zero dawn
Yes, Sony certainly has taken an N64-like approach when it comes to JRPGs.
Thanks for that Cheerilee, i don't have twitter, so now i know what this is all about :)
(man these twitter-based threads are a tease...)
I don't understand the lock down though... 7 and 8 came on PC before FF spirits within, i don't remember a screen company on my boxes.. so i don't know why there would be an exception, i always thought it was just a matter of budget and roi previsions.
Unless on PC in japan the games were exclusively sold through VAIO branding xD
At least Yakuza 0 was actually made in Japan. :P
It's not even like Horizon is modeled on a JRPG unlike say Cosmic Star Heroine or LOTR: The Third Age.
Even in the context of when he said that Nintendo was raking it in from Pokémon...
Porting was significantly more expensive back then while creating in-game assets that looked reasonably modern (for the time) was cheaper. Nowadays, it's very much the reverse that's true. On one hand you have software tools to assist with porting games and fairly uniform CPU architectures: iOS/Android/Switch (ARM), PS4/XB1/PC (x86). On the other hand you have significantly higher resolution assets and models to design. These economics make multi-platform the overall trend with all gaming companies. You don't need any ulterior motive to see that.
Literally no one said Sony invests in JRPGs.... I suggested that they do invest in a JRPG by hiring Sakaguchi. I said it would be a good fit because they are the only company investing in single player games. I don't even accept the terminology of "JRPG." Its a dumb racist term people came up with like 10 years ago. In Final Fantasy's hey day on PSone, "JRPGs" were just RPGs.
At least there was a reason there, the deal was very lop sided in MS' favor. MS would get a new HD version of the game and Nintendo would've only gotten the old N64 game. If that was a deal being made today where MS and Nintendo both get the HD remaster for Switch + XBox One, Nintendo likely agrees. Could still happen I guess given they might want to work something out for N64 Classic.
This is all a theory based on the Game Designers Studio's existence in making FFCC, but it raises a question: why was that studio founded? In that is the answer to this.
What I mean is - it really could've been founded for one of a few reasons:
What I mean is - it really could've been founded for one of a few reasons:
- Sony's shares in Square meant they had a contractual obligation to not release games for competing platforms, so it was a loophole. A lot stands against this, though, like FF titles going to Xbox (11, 13, Crystal Defenders, etc) and even more in-house made Nintendo ones (shed loads of ports) way before Sony sold their shares.
- Sony's shares in Square meant that there was an emotional/duty obligation, so they set up a shell company out of respect for the a significant stakeholder (it's business - is this really all that likely? Japan, though)
- Square decided to set up the studio to take advantage of the Q-Fund, which was reserved for start ups developing for Nintendo platforms. Specifically, for a while the Q-Fund was designated as a fund for encouraging start-ups building games with GBA/GCN connectivity, which is very much why FFCC is what it is. They couldn't get the Q-Fund cash and other Nintendo assistance if it wasn't a start-up, so they created GDS in order to get that money to make FFCC.
honestly I could care less who caused what I just want all the final fantasies and kingdom hearts accessible to everyone possible.
Making a shell company just to have FF: CC to me indicates there was some kind of deal with Square-Sony and Square had to tip toe around that by having Yamauchi set up a shell company. It makes no sense if they had complete freedom at that time to not just make the game as they want without having to jump through so many hoops.
Nintendo didn't have to make a shell company funded by Yamauchi to get Resident Evil or Metal Gear Solid on the GameCube.
Q-Fund as I recall didn't even finance anything else it was pretty clearly set up as something to allow Square to bring a Final Fantasy game to GameCube without technically violating whatever deal they had set up with Sony.
At this point I'm just glad whatever the hold up was is over. Switch should have all the Final Fantasy games it can run, XBox too, ditto for Kingdom Hearts and FF Tactics. SE is probably going to make more money off these ports than they think as well, FFXV: PE is now up to no.2 on the US eShop top sellers.
This reply wasn't directed to me (apologies for jumping in), but I just re-read the last few pages and came across this article: http://www.ign.com/articles/2001/10/08/sony-buys-stake-in-square-2 . Someone pointed out to it because of Sony buying Square stock, but if you read further you find this (direct quote):
You can read more about this in the last few paragraphs. Unless I'm missing something that wasn't mentioned in the article, wouldn't this settle that Sony didn't have any actual decision-making power with Square?
Last edited:
So ~40 million install base X1 wasn't reason enough, but <20 million Switch is?
What about the 3DS?
What about the 3DS?
the most logical excuse for this SE doing this on a whim rather than any real reason
FF7 was on the psp. How would a system a good deal weaker than the base 3DS be able to handle this game but the 3DS couldn't?
Hell I'm sure the original Nintendo DS could have handled a version of FF7 (think RE: Deadly Silence). But it would have required a full on reworked port and would have been a big project. The thing with PSP is that it had a PS1 emulator coded for it from launch, so putting FF7 on it was nearly free.
My suspicion is:
1.) Square and Sony had a deal for PS1/PS2 content that the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts series' were console exclusive to the Playstation brand. In exchange for this, Square got a lot of moneybag kickbacks and preferential treatment.
2.) While technically they were allowed to make GCN or XBox games, they weren't allowed to put an internally developed Final Fantasy or KH franchise title on other home consoles. To get around this Nintendo had to set up a shell company for FF: Crystal Chronicles so "technically" they weren't making it, it was "Game Developers Studio", which never made a game again after that from what I recall.
3.) Square-Enix ended this deal after the PS2 era and opted to make FF13 multiplat. They didn't have to jump through the same hoops to have FF: Crystal Chronicles game on Wii either. They still maintained close ties to Sony since they still owned stock though and past PS1/PS2 era content remained locked to Playstation devices, I suspect Sony continued to throw Square a few kick backs to keep things that way.
4.) With Sony selling off all their Square stock in 2014, ties loosened further. The success of the Switch finally made them come off keeping content hoarded away on Playstation platforms as it was too good of an opportunity to make money on Switch. If there was any doubt, Octopath Traveller crushed that. Since you're going to put these games on Nintendo systems, you might as well also get XBox in there.
That's my read on what happened, we'll probably never know the full story because it's not really common for Japanese companies to talk about inner deals like this. In either case, I'm just happy the whole situation is basically over and everyone can enjoy these titles on whatever platform they want.
1.) Square and Sony had a deal for PS1/PS2 content that the Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts series' were console exclusive to the Playstation brand. In exchange for this, Square got a lot of moneybag kickbacks and preferential treatment.
2.) While technically they were allowed to make GCN or XBox games, they weren't allowed to put an internally developed Final Fantasy or KH franchise title on other home consoles. To get around this Nintendo had to set up a shell company for FF: Crystal Chronicles so "technically" they weren't making it, it was "Game Developers Studio", which never made a game again after that from what I recall.
3.) Square-Enix ended this deal after the PS2 era and opted to make FF13 multiplat. They didn't have to jump through the same hoops to have FF: Crystal Chronicles game on Wii either. They still maintained close ties to Sony since they still owned stock though and past PS1/PS2 era content remained locked to Playstation devices, I suspect Sony continued to throw Square a few kick backs to keep things that way.
4.) With Sony selling off all their Square stock in 2014, ties loosened further. The success of the Switch finally made them come off keeping content hoarded away on Playstation platforms as it was too good of an opportunity to make money on Switch. If there was any doubt, Octopath Traveller crushed that. Since you're going to put these games on Nintendo systems, you might as well also get XBox in there.
That's my read on what happened, we'll probably never know the full story because it's not really common for Japanese companies to talk about inner deals like this. In either case, I'm just happy the whole situation is basically over and everyone can enjoy these titles on whatever platform they want.
What the fuck am I reading?
Most of those Nintendo games are better than Freedom Wars, Soul Sacrifice, and Oreshika though. I think you'd have to go as far back as Demon's Souls (2009) and Jeanne d'Arc (2006) to find something besides Bloodborne as high quality as Nintendo's recent published JRPGs.
And Horizon isn't even an RPG, let alone a JRPG.
Last edited:
Q-Fund was an existing program prior to FFCC and funded a number of Gamecube games. A good example is Genius Sonority, an independent company made up of a mixture of ex-Enix and Game Freak employees, which was one of the first companies to be founded out of the Q-Fund. After a bunch of experimentation Nintendo/TPC allowed them to make a Pokemon spin-off which eventually became Coliseum. Genius Sonority is still a private company to this day that only makes games for Nintendo consoles. The Q-Fund had a part in the founding of over 10 studios or subsidiaries who'd work on the GBA and GC - and FFCC wasn't anywhere near the first project with the fund.
All I'm arguing is for Square it would've made sense at the time with or without any Sony interference. The core teams are busy working on the PS games - on FF10, 11 and 12. In order to create a GC game you need new technology, a new team, and new tools because the architecture is different. Nintendo, licking wounds from the GC, is happy to offer up a cash & support incentive to make it happen via a scheme they have going. The GC audience is small compared to PS, and Nintendo knows they need to open up their wallet to encourage third parties to make the effort (and to minimize their risk).
Setting up a new subsidiary is a relatively simple action - if it in turn gives them access to those funds, which helps solve the team/tech/tools problem and mitigate risk, that's a win/win for SE. If it works out they have a new great selling game and a new audience on a new platform. If it doesn't, they get to keep the subsidiary and the tools/knowledge they gathered. These sorts of third party assistance offers from platform holders with cash grants and the like are pretty standard even today (though Nintendo doesn't seem to indulge in it much any more). They're especially common when somebody is losing in market share - Microsoft did it a lot at the start of the 360 generation before they realized they were gonna be successful and recently since Spencer took over Xbox One.
TLDR; Square taking advantage of the Q-Fund is not necessarily something that has anything to do with a Sony 'stake' in the company, especially given Sony's stake was so minor. Like, maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but Square's use of the Q-Fund being an indicator that Sony said 'no' to the core company doing GC games is just supposition based on pretty weak evidence.
Regarding the point about RE and MGS - different companies and relationships leave different approaches, but Capcom didn't just 'decide' to do the 'Capcom 5' for GC out of nowhere - there was, as there always is, back room dealing, agreements, co-marketing cash offers, etc - which is why when Capcom later backed out of elements of that deal Nintendo was furious.
Nintendo is pound for pound the best RPG studio in existence without even including their publishing efforts.
I would argue Horizon to be an RPG, but I'm all for a loose interpretation of the term.
Square also clearly wanted to make GBA games and Nintendo was in a mood to try and mend some bridges burnt in the mid 90's. It was all business. SE was one of the most prolific Japanese third parties on the DS for example, and when it came to overseas publishing did almost all of it itself when they did very little of it during the GBA and 3DS days.
Maybe? Is there any real evidence to support this, like a legal contract from either company?
Could just be that thats where the audience was and they didn't have a proven base for other consoles to take a risk on until now
Could just be that thats where the audience was and they didn't have a proven base for other consoles to take a risk on until now
the rpg audience wasn't on the 3DS? how many rpgs needed to be released on the system before SE need proof Final Fantasy would have sold well on it? not to mention there are more 3DSs than XBOs right now and yet FF7 is coming to that
FF7 on the PSP was emulated. The PS1 version of the game has never been released on a non-Sony console.
Back in 2013, Square took the old PC version and reworked it to run on newer versions of Windows. This is the version of the game that was ported to the PS4/XB1 and the Switch. The minimum system requirements for the PC version are a 2ghz CPU and 1GB of RAM, which are a lot more then the 3DS has spec wise.
The PS1 version of the game was published by Sony and they are still the publisher of that version. The PC version was originally published by Eidos, who Square now owns. Square is able to port that version of the game to anything they want.
The 3DS is capable of running the PS1 version of the game, the issue is if it can run the PC version of the game.
There's almost certainly been a year exclusivity deal built into a lot of these smaller games/releases for Sony systems lately. Simple math on when the Steam versions get announced makes it more smoke than fire. Probably some sort of handshake deal or something to do with marketing.
the original PC version was built for hardware weaker than the 3DS. if they had the original PC source to modify for modern hardware, I do believe they could also modify the source to run on the 3DS.
I just assumed there was a sort of "gentleman's agreement" while Sony owned that chunk of stock. I doubt they were ever legally prohibited from porting FFVII to a Nintendo or Xbox system, they just thought it would be gross to do while Sony owned almost 1/4 of the shares.
Honor & shame, etc.
Honor & shame, etc.
This I agree with, but then you have to ask yourself if it's worth the time and effort required to get it up and running.
We'll never know I guess. I will add though I think one key issue was this, Square wanted the GBA license badly, but Yamauchi was playing hardball and not allowing them to have it unless they gave the GameCube a Final Fantasy game.
I suspect that put Square in a hard place because they had a contract signed with Sony and had to maneuver around that.
I remember at the time sites reporting that Squaresoft was coming back to make games for Nintendo platforms, but Yamauchi slapped that down and denied it like a week later, lol.
I'm guessing he was posturing to get the deal for Crystal Chronicles GameCube done. The solution was to jump through some hoops to get FF: CC on GameCube, in return for that Square got the GBA license they badly wanted.
2017/2018. We'll even keep your dumb $60 qualifier.
Nintendo
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
- Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle*
- Fire Emblem Warriors*
- Super Mario Odyssey*
- Xenoblade 2
- Bayonetta 1 & 2*
- Kirby: Star Allies*
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 01 Variety Kit ($69.99)
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 02 Robot Kit ($79.99)
- Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze
- Hyrule Warriors: Definitive Edition*
- Octopath Traveler
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 03 Vehicle Kit ($69.99)
- Gravity Rush 2
- Nioh*
- Horizon: Zero Dawn
- God of War
- Detroit: Become Human
- Marvel's Spider-Man
- none
Well they clearly made an audience on Ds and 3DS so yeah but these Pc ports of older FF games, 7, 9, 10 and 12, would they have even run on 3DS? Seems like the bar is higher.
These also cost less than full remakes so idk if the 3DS could run the ports. I guess maybe in 240p but idk. 7 and 9 probably but not 10 or 12 for sure.
I think the DS FF audience was a bit different too. They probably liked that they could do spin offs, new games, etc rather than ports
if it was before 2016, yes
they'd be just fine with ports. as you said, they would cost less than a remake or a new game. SE would recoup the costs (especially if it was prior to 2016).
as for FF10 and 12, I'd say they're theoretically possible. but they'd definitely require more work. especially FF12 since I think that dug deeper into the PS2 hardware than prior games
Why, they'll just remove every character that isn't a toad.
I think it's more to do with Sony dominating during the PS1/PS2 days, kinda no point to look at other platforms. It was viable to make games exclusives back then for 3rd parties, even on PC there was many timed exclusives & they were in no rush to port games to Consoles, of course Xbox 360 & higher budgets all changed this.