By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Square: MS unwilling to work on FFXIV 360 problems

selnor on 15 July 2010
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 



Around the Network
Hephaestos on 15 July 2010
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 

I do see the point... it's true it's not interesting for MS.

(but it's all the more interesting for Square to have it on 360... i'm still convinced they tried to hard ball MS because it was FF and are now bitting their fingers :-p)



OoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoO

selnor on 15 July 2010
Hephaestos said:
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 

I do see the point... it's true it's not interesting for MS.

(but it's all the more interesting for Square to have it on 360... i'm still convinced they tried to hard ball MS because it was FF and are now bitting their fingers :-p)

Yeah it's wierd. M$ will know exactly how many copies of FF11 sold and how many still play it on Live. 

If this was FF15 maybe SE would have some hardball tactics available. Considering FF13 sold 1.5 mill on 360. But FF14. An online game? Where the previous iteration performed so badly in sales it's nearly untrackable?

SE were dreaming playing hardball. LOL.



piggychan on 15 July 2010
zero129 said:
poroporo said:

Holy ****, four mules ? ... okay I had like 3 and I was just lvl 89 cooking ... :<

Not great money, but at least I never paid for my food.

Am i the only one that dont know what ye are talking about?, and here i was planining on getting this game as my first MORPG but ye all make it sound so complixe (Spelling wrong im drunk muhahha)

haha just get the game.. I know people that have played the game since beta and still not done all the quests in this game.. and it really will eat up your real life time....   plus at first it really is hard making gil but if you get into a really great and large linkshell you should have a great time especially with all the expansions adding huge depth.. such as Rise of Zilart, (CoP) chains of promathia,  Treasures of Aht Urhgan,  Wings of the Goddess, plus new add ons.. and other stuff such as beseige, campaign which is basically travelling back 20 years and fighting in another time against really tough monsters!! Nyzul tower... Dynamis.. 

have lots of fun obtaining keys to get your first airship pass to kazahm...  plus u also got to build your fame in doing lots and lots of missions.

fighting BCNM's and farming NMs and having other people accusing you of kill stealing >__>

have fun with your genkai's.. obtaining your job AF's ....  chocobo raising, auction housing  :P

you'll love getting to know about the goblins (not all are evil and enjoy getting your gobbie bags), yagudas plus the name of the other tribe I forgotten but they are hella ugly tortoises.. >.>

you'll also need to find out about days when and when not to do crafting and stuff :P

plus you probably going to crap your pants running through Garlaige Citadel and trying to open those banishing gates and avoid being seen by monsters ... XD

This is a pretty deep MMO and you definitely need to read up on a lotta stuff especially later on when you have to program your own macros etc

 

EDIT:

oh and be prepared to de-level a lot and have fun when your sneak and invis just randomly wears off and you agro a huge ass mob onto your  party XD



Killiana1a on 15 July 2010
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 

Of course Microsoft does not profit from hosting any MMORPG (other than their own) over Xbox Live whose servers they own and maintain.

If Square Enix convinced Microsoft to allow Final Fantasy 14 to use Xbox Live and it's servers, then it would be a financial boon for Square Enix because their server maintenance fees would be much lower than if they had to create and maintain them on their own.

Then again, Microsoft could come back to the negotiating table and demand a 30-40% monthly cut off of Final Fantasy 14's monthly subscriber fees in order to maintain the Final Fantasy 14 servers for Square Enix.

If I was negotiating for Microsoft, I would demand a 75% cut at the start and negotiate from there not going lower than 40% of the monthly subscriber fees from Final Fantasy 14. If they wanted lower than a 40% cut, then I would tell them politely to go fuck themselves and walk away from the table.



Around the Network
Wagram on 15 July 2010
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 

I do see the point... it's true it's not interesting for MS.

(but it's all the more interesting for Square to have it on 360... i'm still convinced they tried to hard ball MS because it was FF and are now bitting their fingers :-p)

Yeah it's wierd. M$ will know exactly how many copies of FF11 sold and how many still play it on Live. 

If this was FF15 maybe SE would have some hardball tactics available. Considering FF13 sold 1.5 mill on 360. But FF14. An online game? Where the previous iteration performed so badly in sales it's nearly untrackable?

SE were dreaming playing hardball. LOL.


Preformed so bad in sales that the game generated more revenue than any FF game.

LOL FAIL @ SQUARE! THOSE NOOBS.



BenVTrigger on 15 July 2010
Wagram said:
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:
selnor said:
Hephaestos said:

Why are the sales of an MMO brought up?

Success is counted in number of suscribers.... Every year, each suscriber has paid about the price of 2 fully priced games in fees.... so 200K suscribers is probably the equivalent of a 1.5M selling regular game (with price decrease), revenue wise.


Even if you are right. M$ do not benefit from this. Remember SE are asking M$ to change their policy, for M$ to make a bit on game sales. M$ make nothing off of SE monthly subscription. 

See my point. 200,000 game sales in 4 years is less than spare change to M$. Especially when their policies are called into question. 

I do see the point... it's true it's not interesting for MS.

(but it's all the more interesting for Square to have it on 360... i'm still convinced they tried to hard ball MS because it was FF and are now bitting their fingers :-p)

Yeah it's wierd. M$ will know exactly how many copies of FF11 sold and how many still play it on Live. 

If this was FF15 maybe SE would have some hardball tactics available. Considering FF13 sold 1.5 mill on 360. But FF14. An online game? Where the previous iteration performed so badly in sales it's nearly untrackable?

SE were dreaming playing hardball. LOL.


Preformed so bad in sales that the game generated more revenue than any FF game.

LOL FAIL @ SQUARE! THOSE NOOBS.


on console obviously.  Your just trying to start stuff now because its obvious that all this huge revenue from FFXI had NOTHING to do with the 360 version.  You really think a game that barely sold 200k copies on console generated huge revenue for either MS or Square Enix?  Obviously if this was a PC argument than yes of course it makes sense to make FFIV and it will be hugely successful on the PC.  On the other hand it would be flat out stupid for MS to go out of their way to bring the game to the 360 when they will get hardly anything out of it at all.  



twesterm on 15 July 2010
Killiana1a said:

No, I have not forgotten. I still remember playing Anarchy Online and cancelling it after a month of playing.

As for comparing every MMORPG to WoW it is the necessary and right thing to do as WoW set the benchmark, is still the MMORPG leader, and is the game to build one's MMORPG around in order to usurp WoW's throne.

I was still playing WoW when Age of Conan and Warhammer Online came out. A few guildies left to play one or both, but sure enough, they were back within a month or two. I have not forgotten.

As for the comparison between Bioshock and Modern Warfare 2, you are right eventhough you are leaving out the massive marketing push that Modern Warfare 2 had.

As for a game being a failure or not, MMORPGS are judged on their monthly subscribers more than first week and first month sales alone. That being said, I am perfectly right and irrefutable in saying that Final Fantasy 11 has been a failure in comparison to WoW because it took 7 years for Final Fantasy 11 to reach 2 million subscribers, while WoW did that in less than 6 months.

As for the original question by the OP or should I say whine from Square Enix, Square Enix is expecting Microsoft via Xbox Live to provide a free lunch in the form of Microsoft taking the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per month to own, run and maintain the Final Fantasy 14 servers.

I can understand why Microsoft would be hostile to giving Square Enix something for nothing.

Again, calling FFXI a failure because it failed to outdo WoW is just flat out wrong.  True, it didn't do nearly as well as WoW but that doesn't make it a failure.  Not at all.

Again, a game doesn't have to be the best in whatever catagory in order to be a success.  You can't say just because one game was wildly successful, all other games fail in comparison.

Also, saying every game should strive to be like WoW is why all those other games failed in the first place.  FFXI was actually a success because it wasn't a WoW ripoff.



 

dahuman on 15 July 2010
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
dahuman said:
ssj12 said:
 

My CPU is only a year and a hlaf old. Athlon X2 7750BE oced to 3.03GHz. My Athlon X2 isnt the old K8 processors. Its based of AMD's K10 series.

lets hope I don't get close or higher than you then, cause then there is something wrong....


Ya, its a CPU stresser. I just ran CPUTemp with EVGA Precision and watched usage. My CPU usage maxed to 100% while GPU stayed around 25% max. And my score this time was 2015. Something is massively screwed up with this benchmark. Its not using my system correctly at all. Especially since I just OCed my GTX480, which is stronger than your GPU at stock, by 30MHz on both processor and memory.

it's pretty much the opposite with my i7 860, CPU doesn't go over 30% and GPU blows it up, I ran it on my 4400 with a 3850 AGP and got about 1400 btw so I think there really is something wrong with the benchmark when working with your setup. That or you are CPU capped and should get a quad to hex core.

Dude you have a Core i7. Of course you wont max out the CPU. The benchmark is probably a port of the PS3 version of the Crystal engine which means it supports the Cell processor and RSX.

My CPU normally outperforms most Core 2 Duo made as well as the Phenom X3 is most benchmarts. it even beats the Core 2 Quad 6600 in some benchmarks. IF I can run Crysis on Very High, I can run FFXIV.


hence I said that there is something wrong with the benchmark when running on your machine lol, have you tried a new install of windows?

Reinstalling Windows is normally a useless tradition. If you really want to refresh windows without having to reinstall or restore everything just install a service pack again. That normally works. Otherwise use ccleaner and defraggler.

Still I could use the Windows 7 SP1 beta I guess. Still not really needed. I think the benchmark is just poorly made. Especially since the rumored recommended specs are pretty pathetic I should be great.

it's only useless if your system is clean =P. you should be fine though, not like you are trying to broadcast the stuff.



dahuman on 15 July 2010
twesterm said:
Killiana1a said:
 

No, I have not forgotten. I still remember playing Anarchy Online and cancelling it after a month of playing.

As for comparing every MMORPG to WoW it is the necessary and right thing to do as WoW set the benchmark, is still the MMORPG leader, and is the game to build one's MMORPG around in order to usurp WoW's throne.

I was still playing WoW when Age of Conan and Warhammer Online came out. A few guildies left to play one or both, but sure enough, they were back within a month or two. I have not forgotten.

As for the comparison between Bioshock and Modern Warfare 2, you are right eventhough you are leaving out the massive marketing push that Modern Warfare 2 had.

As for a game being a failure or not, MMORPGS are judged on their monthly subscribers more than first week and first month sales alone. That being said, I am perfectly right and irrefutable in saying that Final Fantasy 11 has been a failure in comparison to WoW because it took 7 years for Final Fantasy 11 to reach 2 million subscribers, while WoW did that in less than 6 months.

As for the original question by the OP or should I say whine from Square Enix, Square Enix is expecting Microsoft via Xbox Live to provide a free lunch in the form of Microsoft taking the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per month to own, run and maintain the Final Fantasy 14 servers.

I can understand why Microsoft would be hostile to giving Square Enix something for nothing.

Again, calling FFXI a failure because it failed to outdo WoW is just flat out wrong.  True, it didn't do nearly as well as WoW but that doesn't make it a failure.  Not at all.

Again, a game doesn't have to be the best in whatever catagory in order to be a success.  You can't say just because one game was wildly successful, all other games fail in comparison.

Also, saying every game should strive to be like WoW is why all those other games failed in the first place.  FFXI was actually a success because it wasn't a WoW ripoff.

Failure is the servers are down, not making profits, and completely drops off the grid, for example, Asheron's Call 2, which went down pretty damn fast. AO is still up and running at least lol. Asheron's Call is still running in contrast as well, lol.

The 360 is a very closed off platform when it comes to stuff like that and it's the choice of MS, I'm pretty sure FF14 would survive fine. Saying everything is fail vs WoW is like saying every racing game is utter shit vs MKWii.