What did they do to Phantom Dust? If you're talking about the Phantom Dust reboot, that wasn't Japanese.Level 5, Platinum, statements from nippon ichi, what they did to phantom dust, ect..
Wasn't Sakaguchi the president of Square at the time? If so it's a weird twist of fate that his new company Mistwalker went to Microsoft for funding only a few years later.
Yeah, another one of these big deals will actually come to fruition though and a lot of ppl are going to lose their shitIt's amazing how keen Microsoft were to get a foothold but still had the sense to walk away. Another thing, they really go straight for the shit hot thing of the time to get a leg up. Kinda see that with Minecraft, COD, PUBG etc.
Sakaguchi was never president of Square. He was executive vice president at his resignation and likely at this time tooWasn't Sakaguchi the president of Square at the time? If so it's a weird twist of fate that his new company Mistwalker went to Microsoft for funding only a few years later.
Nintendo didn't understand Rare, either. But the critical aspect of the Nintendo/Rare relationship was that Nintendo left Rare alone for the most part. More importantly Rare's management shielded the development teams from external meddling. (And deadlines.) Nintendo would occasionally veto things and make "suggestions", but they were largely hands off. Ken Lobb was the primary point of contact between Nintendo and Rare. And the strange thing is that he joined MS. He is Rare's evangelist within MS. They could have had the same relationship, but MS management felt they knew better.If MS didn't really understand what Rare was and their culture, good lord would they have struggled at understanding Square. Everyone involved dodged a bullet there.
Yeah, I misremembered, he was president of the NA branch of Square as well as executive vice president at the time. Couldn't find who was the actual president though, every site I found says Suzuki only became Square's president in 2000. If the book says it's 1995 though I'll believe it.Sakaguchi was never president of Square. He was executive vice president at his resignation and likely at this time too
Bill Gates did not believe Xbox would be successful. According to interviews he was always asking what they were doing with his money. He was ready to abort despite being excited for it in public.It's amazing.
Reading J Allard's, all lower case, emails to Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer to "pre disaster" the meeting where Bill Gates chewed everyone up "this is a fucking insult to everything I've done at this company" is stuff I never expected to read.
I used to drive the guys crazy because all they wanted to do was invent the future, you know, typical classic Microsoft guys, and I was kind of the anti-Christ going out to Nintendo and saying I'd rather buy them... In my mind we should have paid $25 billion for the company, rather than start this from scratch internally.
If Square was owned by MS, automata would have never been made.
I feel like this would have been a disaster for both companies and would have led to Square closing.
It seems rare that these acquisitions ever work out.
Pun intended? ;p
But seriously, Square fans should consider themselves lucky this didn't happen. Sucks that us Rare fans can't say the same. :(
We don't know that. Unless you can prove it NieR: Automata was going to be an XB1 game.
Give me a moment before I get to the main crux of the title. I promise I'll deliver.
Last year I saw that there were two upcoming books, Game of X v.1 and 2, from Rusel Demaria (who you might recall wrote some of the supplemental material tied to the X-Wing/Tie Fighter games along with founding Prima Guides) about Microsoft, the Xbox and DirectX. I'm a big fan of Dean Takahashi's "Unlocking the Xbox" book that detailed the making of that console so getting a new book about that time, now over a decade later so interviewees could be more open, was very appealing.
Anywho, fast forward to last week where I was pretty surprised to see that both volumes had actually released last year; I ordered myself a copy of the first volume and decided to look around online and see what folk thought of it. Thing is, the only discussion point I saw on the book was a VentureBeat article published on New Years Eve by Dean Takahashi about the book. The article made the book sound pretty exciting but I was still a bit curious at it's complete lack of reception.
Now that I have the book in my hands I'm blown away at its contents just 80 pages in. You have stuff in there that no one has talked about before like the Square deal (OK, Google shows one person teasing it back on GAF) or the meeting Bill Gates had with the chairman/CEO of CSK (owner of Sega), Isao Okawa where Okawa pitched Microsoft on working on a "Dreamcast 2 type thing" instead of the Xbox. Isao Okawa, dying of cancer, wanted to "leave another mark, even posthumously, on technology and Japan" and was willing to go all in on a collaboration. You even get how Nintendo, no matter how incredibly favorable a collaborative deal was, wouldn't work with MIcrosoft for how it would look like they "lost" to them.
Then there's the internal MIcrosoft information like the troubles of merging FASA into MIcrosoft went, how the MS Dreamcast team pitched against the Xbox, why Dell turned down an OEM Xbox, Epic pushing hard for the Xbox to use a mouse/keyboard and why that GDC console was in the shape of an X. Again, that's all just a couple things mentioned in the early pages of the book.
The book also includes official charts, powerpoint slides from things like meetings with Bill Gates, early architecture designs and roadmaps, emails from J Allard trying to calm any concerns from Gates and Balmer before the "massacre" of a final meeting that greenlit the Xbox, memos from marketing companies on research on the "X-box" name vs 11-X (along with a bunch of other unused names). All that's just from what I've read so far and by flipping through the nearly 200+ page appendix.
It is insane to me that this book has gotten essentially no coverage or discussion online. If you are at all interested in games I really, really encourage you to pick this up. There's a kindle and physical release on Amazon if you're interested (Canada here). I don't mean to rave but it's incredible stuff for anyone remotely interested in this industry.
_____________
Anyways, to deliver on that title's bait. As mentioned above in 1999 Microsoft had been courting companies for acquisition and SquareSoft came up primarily for getting the Final Fantasy IP. It got to the point, according to Bob McBreen, at the final meeting where the deal was to be signed the CEO of Square stood up and said that "before we sign, our banker would like to say something" to which said banker announced "we want more money" and "...just about doubled the price".
Square's banker explained that the valuation done had some errors. When asked what was missed in the valuation by Microsoft's representatives they were told "You missed that we're worth more money. We want more money". Rick Thompson recalled that "They wanted something like one and a half billion dollars for half of the company" which was more than what Microsoft was willing to spend so both parties walked from the deal.
What a world that would have been, eh?
*I have no relation to Rusel Demaria or these books. I just think it is, at least from what I've read, something that absolutely deserves the attention it hasn't gotten.*
If Square was owned by MS, automata would have never been made.
NeiR: Automata was going to be a PC game, originally, wasn't it? If Square were owned by MS, terrible PC ports like NieR: Automata's would not happen. MS have standards. Wildly inconsistent standards -- see Halo Wars 2 -- but standards nonetheless.We don't know that. Unless you can prove it NieR: Automata was going to be an XB1 game.
NeiR: Automata was going to be a PC game, originally, wasn't it? If Square were owned by MS, terrible PC ports like NieR: Automata's would not happen. MS have standards. Wildly inconsistent standards -- see Halo Wars 2 -- but standards nonetheless.
It's all speculation, anyway. We have no idea how MS would have run Square. They've never been in that position before. Like, if Microsoft had outright owned Bioware, do people think that Bioware's games would have changed all that much? I don't think so. The biggest change of MS owning Square would probably have been MS pushing higher production values. (The Final Fantasy series has some ATROCIOUS graphics.) Which would push costs up. Which would push sales expectations up. This would have potential knock-on effects.
But Rare is free with MS. The only thing MS made them do were the avatars and the kinetic games (and I'm not sure the latter was forced). Everything else was made by what the studio wanted. And that's the reason why we don't have new Banjos or Conkers. They may have a stricter schedule but they do whatever they want to. It would be no different with Square but I imagine they would focus on Japanese market.Nintendo didn't understand Rare, either. But the critical aspect of the Nintendo/Rare relationship was that Nintendo left Rare alone for the most part. More importantly Rare's management shielded the development teams from external meddling. (And deadlines.) Nintendo would occasionally veto things and make "suggestions", but they were largely hands off. Ken Lobb was the primary point of contact between Nintendo and Rare. And the strange thing is that he joined MS. He is Rare's evangelist within MS. They could have had the same relationship, but MS management felt they knew better.
Really, a Square/MS relationship would have entirely hinged upon management style. As we saw with Lionhead -- or even Bungie, arguably -- it's not like MS in that era had a "must micromanage the shit out of everything" policy stapled to the wall. Bungie's absolutely terrible development practices would probably never have been allowed if Microsoft had been paying attention to what Bungie were doing.
Pun intended? ;p
But seriously, Square fans should consider themselves lucky this didn't happen. Sucks that us Rare fans can't say the same. :(
Y'all need to ask yourself why Nintendo didn't value Rare as much as Microsoft.
This could've been a decent thread, but instead it's a shit on Microsoft thread. FFs y'all got some intersting tidbits to talk about and all some of you want to do is praise the heavens that Microsoft from 99( who were actually putting out games) didn't buy Square. I mean damn.
Microsoft want blockbusters game, look at their current output.
You could say that it was not like that during the OG Xbox days and you would be right but MS basically dropped all franchise from that era.
So there's very little chance for them to greenlight a sequel to Drakengard, than a spin off based on one of the endings of that game and then a sequel to Drakengard 2 and finally Nier Automata. All the while knowing that the team developping the first Nier was closed.
That's too convoluted to be a scenario coming with Microsoft unless they give Square full control for decades.
Well we have the power of knowing what happened after MS got into the game industry and how they act as a game publisher, so you can't be surprised to see everyone breathing a sigh of relief.
This is an amazing quote. I love it.
The Rare situation is... nuanced. One can draw parallels to Valve. MS instituted a corporate structure that made it difficult for Rare's teams to actually make the games they wanted to make. But underneath this layer is another problem. Rare were afflicted by a sort of creative morass. A lack of forward direction that has only just been regained with Sea of Thieves.But Rare is free with MS. The only thing MS made them do were the avatars and the kinetic games (and I'm not sure the latter was forced). Everything else was made by what the studio wanted. And that's the reason why we don't have new Banjos or Conkers. They may have a stricter schedule but they do whatever they want to. It would be no different with Square but I imagine they would focus on Japanese market.