RolStoppable said:
The source is linked in the original post of this thread: https://www.polygon.com/a/final-fantasy-7#prologue Tomuyuki Takechi, Squaresoft's CEO at the time put it like this: "Sony basically gave us the best deal they were giving to any publisher. And they did a lot of public relations work and marketing on their dime. They gave us a great deal to help convince us to come over. … I can’t talk about the details, but one thing I can say is that Sony went very low on the per-unit royalties that we had to pay." Despite it not being a full disclosure of the deal, the tidbits he gave leave no doubt that a lot of money was in play and that's why technological aspects of the console hardware during that generation weren't the decisive factors to put Final Fantasy VII on the PS1. Developers can say what they liked about the PS1 all they want, but when Squaresoft's leadership already decided that the game will be made for the PS1, then it isn't a matter of developer choice to begin with. And that's the problem with this thread. The title, content and poll are heavily biased despite Squaresoft's CEO telling why the fallout between Squaresoft and Nintendo happened. Yet here you are and take issue with those who disagree with the slant of the OP. You've been around long enough to know that it's common practice for moneyhatted publishers to maneuver around saying that they've been paid off and instead they'll give an excuse for why a certain console was their choice. Final Fantasy VII is over 20 years old, that's why the people involved with it aren't as tightlipped anymore. So now everyone can read up on it and learn that the game went to the PS1 because of money. Additional excerpts worth of note: [Note: In October 2001, then Square president Hisashi Suzuki said in an interview that Nintendo became especially frustrated not when Square left, but later when Square helped convince others, such as Enix, to leave as well. Suzuki declined an interview request for this story.] Squaresoft's deal with Sony locked Square as a whole to the PS1, that's why they were convincing others to go PS1-exclusive as well. Shinchiro Kajitani, vice president of Square USA, sums it up like this: "When we made the decision to go with Sony, for about 10 years we basically weren’t allowed into Nintendo’s offices. From a consumer’s point of view, it was good to have two companies competing with each other because prices wouldn’t rise and it would be better for them. But from a business perspective, our main interest was making sure that Sony won and Nintendo lost, basically, because that would be better for us." |
Yet here you are leaving Nintendo out as if their actions didn’t also push Square to move on to a publisher that’s not as draconic and greedy with third parties, as it is well known Nintendo was during that time.
The parties involved in the Squaresoft and Nintendo falloff doesn’t only include Sony and Squaresoft. It also includes Nintendo. And that’s a side that you more often than not leave out, because it doesn't match with your one-sided narrative.
Nintendo were asking more money from third parties than Sony. If placed with the choice to buy a car for 30k and then you see the same exact car for 20k, would you buy the one for 30k simply because you have a somewhat long history with the seller? No. You’d think the seller takes you for granted and tries to rip you off . This is basically what Nintendo did with third parties back then. The history is well known and documented.
Last edited by Hynad - on 17 April 2020
