-
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
That's a shit ton of information. Thanks for clarifying things for me.
How the fuck does misinformation spread so fast about the whole Square/Nintendo/Sony when we still got google to fetch old articles?
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/7103/nintendo-and-square-settlement-details
The Game designer studio was just a shell company, all dev was done by Square Production Team 2 (Kawazu's team) and the only credits of GDS is really just FFCC because SquareEnix merging made the arrangement with Sony pointless.
Why we didn't see PS FF on Nintendo platform before?
Maybe it had more to do with making a cheap port or running emulation on Nintendo's platform than anything else.
No one was interested in WiiU so of course it was never going to happen there.
And Switch is popular and easy to port to so that's why.
Why Steam and not Xbox for FF port? Maybe anything not mainline FF from Japanese branch of Square Enix is deemed as pointless cost with little return after Type0 bombed on xb1?
Not sure about that.
But the whole GDS studio headed by Kawazu to make games for Nintendo? That was a 1 game deal and it managed to score Nintendo's Q funds because GDS was a "new" company and legally the one making the game.
Nintendo didn't care because more game for GC anyway
FFTA was actually released before FFCC and didn't need a complex shell company montage because GBA had literally no competition and any dev made there didn't interfere in any way with PS1 or PS2 games.
Also FFCC exists because Kawazu and his team wanted to make a game centered around GBA connectivity, FFCC wouldn't exists otherwise.
The theory about Sony having shares meaning that PS FFs couldn't be ported to other consoles seems based on fantasy, if Sony shares had any impact on SquareEnix decision making FFXIII would have been PS3 exclusive and KH3 would never see the light on xb1. Heck FFXI on x360 makes absolutely no sense at all in that context.
Heck I have no idea why Dragon Quest enters any equation here when we know perfectly well who gets to decide what goes where and it ain't Square Enix management or Sony.
e : Also just to drive the point home :
The shell company TGDS was created by Squaresoft board on an idea of Akitoshi Kawazu from sources find online, this is why Kawazu himself held a 51% shares of the company while Square held 49% (hence technically it wasn't Square holding the rights at all).
Nintendo never had any part on it.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/7103/nintendo-and-square-settlement-details
The Game designer studio was just a shell company, all dev was done by Square Production Team 2 (Kawazu's team) and the only credits of GDS is really just FFCC because SquareEnix merging made the arrangement with Sony pointless.
Why we didn't see PS FF on Nintendo platform before?
Maybe it had more to do with making a cheap port or running emulation on Nintendo's platform than anything else.
No one was interested in WiiU so of course it was never going to happen there.
And Switch is popular and easy to port to so that's why.
Why Steam and not Xbox for FF port? Maybe anything not mainline FF from Japanese branch of Square Enix is deemed as pointless cost with little return after Type0 bombed on xb1?
Not sure about that.
But the whole GDS studio headed by Kawazu to make games for Nintendo? That was a 1 game deal and it managed to score Nintendo's Q funds because GDS was a "new" company and legally the one making the game.
Nintendo didn't care because more game for GC anyway
FFTA was actually released before FFCC and didn't need a complex shell company montage because GBA had literally no competition and any dev made there didn't interfere in any way with PS1 or PS2 games.
Also FFCC exists because Kawazu and his team wanted to make a game centered around GBA connectivity, FFCC wouldn't exists otherwise.
The theory about Sony having shares meaning that PS FFs couldn't be ported to other consoles seems based on fantasy, if Sony shares had any impact on SquareEnix decision making FFXIII would have been PS3 exclusive and KH3 would never see the light on xb1. Heck FFXI on x360 makes absolutely no sense at all in that context.
Heck I have no idea why Dragon Quest enters any equation here when we know perfectly well who gets to decide what goes where and it ain't Square Enix management or Sony.
e : Also just to drive the point home :
The shell company TGDS was created by Squaresoft board on an idea of Akitoshi Kawazu from sources find online, this is why Kawazu himself held a 51% shares of the company while Square held 49% (hence technically it wasn't Square holding the rights at all).
Nintendo never had any part on it.
Last edited:
Hi... um I fixed your list for you. It's amazing to me that you included games not even made by Nintendo. They just happen to be on the Switch. but okay:
The only single player games Nintendo has actually invested in, in the past decade or so:
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
- Super Mario Odyssey*
This is literally an Ubisoft Game. Are you high?
- Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle*
Not developed or funded by Nintendo:
- Fire Emblem Warriors
- Xenoblade 2
- Bayonetta 1 & 2*
- Octopath Traveler
Literally isn't even a video game. It's also toy merchandise apart of the same product, which you are counting as individual single player titles:
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 01 Variety Kit ($69.99)
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 02 Robot Kit ($79.99)
- Nintendo Labo: Toycon 03 Vehicle Kit ($69.99)
- Kirby: Star Allies*
- Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze
- Hyrule Warriors: Definitive Edition*
User Banned (3 days) - Console Warring, Thread Derailment, Arguing in Bad Faith and Personal Attacks throughout thread
When I never moved the goal posts, and Nintendo fan boys misrepresent my argument bc their feels got hurt.
This was very public back in the day or at least outlets covered it. I understand that games are coming to Switch and is news but this thing that has been discussed last week it was always known.
Here's a list of 7 games, each of which has a budget greater than every Switch game listed (half of which weren't even Nintendo developed games) combined:
Bloodborne
Infamous: Second Son
The Order 1886
Uncharted 4
Horizon Zero Dawn
Detroit Becoming Human
God of War
Spiderman
Lol knew I should've looked it up, completely forgot it was proven false years ago
WTF?
Xenoblade 2 is made by Monolith Soft which is literally a Nintendo division.
Employees of Monolith soft are as much Nintendo employees as former EAD or
Has OctopathTraveler been released on PS4? Because I can play I am Setsuna on Switch right now, do you need screenshots for proof of this?
Like for Monolith Soft ?
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2018/annual1803e.pdf
Is Nintendo Technology Development Inc. not a part of Nintendo now?
When can we expect Mario vs Donkey Kong series to reach mobile phones or PSVita?
https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/pdf/2018/annual1803e.pdf
Is Nintendo Technology Development Inc. not a part of Nintendo now?
When can we expect Mario vs Donkey Kong series to reach mobile phones or PSVita?
Last edited:
He says in those tweets that Sega funded the game for the first part of its development... therefore Nintendo didn't fully fund it.
Oh wow, I should've known the dumb qualifiers and "doesn't count" arguments were going to continue. Seems you need a little correction of your own though.
Nintendo had oversight over Mario+Rabbids and they have mutiple production credits on it. They also published it in Japan.
Bayonetta 2 is a 100% 1st party Nintendo game. They licensed the IP but they 100% produced and funded the game. It's not 3rd party by any definition, not anymore than something like PS4 Spider-man is. Nintendo also produced and funded their ports of Bayo 1.
The Musou games (Zelda and FE) are co-produced (and funded) between Nintendo and Koei Tecmo. Nintendo gets global publishing rights while Koei gets Japan and the original devs at Nintendo/Intelligent Systems are involved in production. Nintendo has a long history of doing this with major publishers and splitting the rights depending on region or platform (Mario & Sonic Olympics, F-Zero AX/GX, Donkey Konga, Mario DDR, Pokken, Mario+Rabbids, etc).
Monolith Soft is a 100% Nintendo subsidiary. They ARE Nintendo. This is like saying Sony didn't develop Uncharted or Horizon.
Octopath Traveler might not be high budget exactly, but it's also nowhere near comparable to the Tokyo RPG Factory games. And Nintendo published and promoted it overseas, if Sony had done the same for I am Setsuna and charged $59.99 for it then yes I'd have included it. Unfortunately though Sony doesn't really publish JRPGs anymore.
There are actual games within each Labo kit. It's not just productivity software. And they're each unique products too.
2D platformers might be relatively cheap to develop but Nintendo's generally have higher dev costs (DKCR and KSA both had pretty large staff counts and dev time) and bigger promotional budgets. Kirby also has a notable extended DLC schedule. Both these games cost more to make and release than say Gravity Rush 2 did.
I think the best part of your whole tirade though is that if we held Sony to the exact same standard and only counted games that they 100% own the license, had a full AAA dev/ad budget and were only developed internally by their original R&D software group (which is Japan Studio btw) then the lists would look like this in comparison:
Nintendo
- The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
- Super Mario Odyssey
- nothing
- nothing
Are you going to explain how a Nintendo subsidiary managed to fund a 100hrs RPG without any fund from Nintendo and without usng any Nintendo employee?
Okay, so that's one game that sort of resembles a modern single player title. It was released 7 years after its prequel, which reinforces my statement that Nintendo invests in a single player title "every ten years or so." But certainly it is another example of a Nintendo game.
You realise that Nintendo having to license the game from Sega is them funding what work they had done on it up until that point and beyond?
Are you just ignoring the 2nd tweet then
Sega canceled it early in development. Nintendo funded and more impurtantly owns the game that actually came out.
BOTW likely had a bigger overall budget that all these. Over 500 dev staff count, over 5 years in development, multiple trade show appearances, heavy advertising, insane R&D and promo spend.
Sony spends on AAA yes but so does Nintendo at the top end. Pokémon LGPE and Smash are potentially bigger budget overall than those games too, Pokémon especially has astromonical promotional budgets.
lol, keep it up. This is fun.
Xenoblade Chronicles (2010)
Xenoblade Chronicles 3D (2014)
Xenoblade Chronicles X (2015)
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (2017)
Like do you actually know what Monolith Soft do or did you just confuse them with the FEAR developper?
Because :
You know...
And if Xenoblade X isn't single player then Mario Odyssey certainly isn't as well as Bayonnetta2 or Uncharted 4.
Lel, you should check your fuckin work before you start calling people out for "misrepresentation", lest you wreck yourself, darling
Sorry, but this is just wrong. You're presenting Nintendo licensing deals, "co-developing" titles, and helping developers to the finish line as original titles that Nintendo invested in. At the same time you're trying to use technicalities around how Sony licenses its titles to refute the fact that they invest in expensive original ip. SWW studio clearly has budgets in the tens of millions of dollars for the titles it puts out. Nintendo doing a mascot cross over with a giant publisher like Ubisoft isn't the same thing.
Doll face you should delete your avatar bc the fury thing is creepy, then get help with your reading comprehension.
So, given that the TSW stuff (and subsequent crash and Square-Enix merger) happened *after* Final Fantasy X, this would explain *at the most* Final Fantasy X-2, XI, and XII. Do I have that right?
How the fuck do you know how much Nintendo is spending on games when you don't even look at their salary cost or anything?
You didn't even know Monolith was part of Nintendo until it was pointed out to you.
And btw Monolith Soft worked on BotW extensively too because they're just that big.
And if you think mascot platformers are cheap to make, you clearly can't tell the difference between Sega's Sonic Team and Nintendo's EAD Tokyo.
Heck if partnerships and using external IPs is somehow "cheap" then I guess we need to explain to Sony how cheap the latest Spiderman was to make.
Nintendo is certainly a slow developer. Thanks for reinforcing my point. That doesn't mean they're putting a lot of resources into the games they put out.
Are you gonna make a post without making shit up?
Do we need to trudge out BotW's interviews and shit to explain how extensive the work done there?
Lol wow the anger is so funny. Um have you looked at a Switch game? Do you understand how game budgets work, and how they scale with graphical fidelity? Y'all are over here like "OMG KIRBY!! KIRBYY!!!!" like ... we're talking about a publisher who's suited to produce a F i n a l F a n t a s y game. Do you know what Final Fantasy is?
I didn't make up anything? I'm not the one who cited the length of BotW's development. I don't know why its even controversial to say that Nintendo does not turn out games quickly. I mean how can you think differently if you've paid the slightest bit of attention to their games over the past two decades?
I just used your original standard: $60 single player games. And I'm fine with your constant goal-post movng, I'm just applying the same standard to everyone which you seem to have a problem with.
Here's probably a much much much more relevant standard for what you want though:
Nintendo produced Sakaguchi games:
- ASH: Archaic Sealed Heat
- The Last Story
- Blue Dragon
- Lost Odyssey
- nothing
Polish takes time. And money. It pays off though, BOTW and Odyssey are probably going to end up being the two best selling single player 1st party games this decade. And they can actually hold their $59.99 pricepoints too.
What the fuck has Kirby from HAL Laboratory got to do with anything?
Do YOU understand how game budget works? You do know that the more employees there are the costlier it's going to get, right?
Speaking of Final Fantasy, you do know that the only reason they've gotten so expensive to make lately is because SquareEnix is so bad at making them, right?
Funnily enough we know that Xenoblade 2 wasn't too expensive to make (and it looks like it actually cost less than XenobladeX even) with interviews and the likes.
You can stop trolling to derail the thread anytime you want to decide to use sources and have sound arguments.
Your shit is easier to knock over than a kirby boss.
the time it took to make BotW is because of the scope and the amount of employees it required.
We know Skyward Sword took forever because they nearly ditched motion controls before Wiisports resort came out and proved that they could use them to make the game.
And with the state of the final game we know that it means that they basically restarted the whole game in between.
Do you even follow anything Nintendo or are you just here to troll?
Want to go farther into the past?
Zelda TP, it took forever because they had a lot of stuffs prepared for the game and during the polish phase they had to port the game in 1 year, extending an already overlong development process.
Please show a developper in similar circumstances going faster, I'd like to see that.
I mean Nintendo is slow, amirite?
Just ignore and report. This is a low effort gamefaqs system wars troll with arguments without fact that I am surprised it can last so long on a highly moderated forum.
You're just a sad, highly defensive Nintendo fan. When I say "investing in" obviously I don't mean putting out any title that is single player. Nintendo has been reskinning "single player" Mario games on handhelds forever. It would be an absurdly broad standard, if that was what I inferred. But it is not what I inferred! "Investing in" refers to a certain scale of budget. The failure of the Final Fantasy series is to cope with modern production standards in the post HD era. Not that Square Enix can't publish any games at all.
And no, your new "list wars" are not any more relevant. Yes, Microsoft gave Sakaguchi the budget for a big title with Lost Odyssey... like 10 years ago. How is that relevant to today? We're already under a completely different development standard. And yes, Nintendo gave him the opportunity to make truncated versions of what he would put out normally. But he is already making games on mobile anyway. Just not the games his fans want from him.
Make some decent arguments instead of bullshitting, then. Wolfy loves ya babe
I think the "sad" poster is probably the one hurling insults because they're losing their argument here. Badly.
There's a million threads about Nintendo right now, heck even the Jimquisition seems better indicated for that discussion than here.
Heck Sony investing in Square when Square was riddled with debts because of that movie (that I liked but apparently we weren't enough) was not altruitistic in any way.
It really was Sony securring the future of a partner they deemed important for their future system (ps2 at the time) because after all FF was a system seller for them on ps1.
The early death of the Wonderswan is what pushed Squaresoft in making GBA games and even edging their bets with Gamecube.
Then again it could have been Kawazu's team having an idea that could only work with GBA connectivity and trying to make the games they wanted to make.
Compare FFCC with what SquareEnix was doing at the time and while by no mean cheap looking, it didn't have lipsync, voices or even CG movies.
2 out of these 3 features would be present in the sequel on Nintendo DS!
Given all they made was CC, I'm not certain if I'd call that hedging their bets. Going by some of the articles and theories posted in this thread, it sounds like SE was merely leveraging Nintendo funding while rebuilding bridges. Which, of course, worked out well for then. As far as Final Fantasy goes however, all we might see is ports from previous gen (FF15 Cloud or the game on Switch 2). However, SE desires lower budget "filler" and Nintendo provides the perfect platform for that. So support will maintain, I think