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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo banned Square from their offices for 10 years after FFVII went to PlayStation. EDIT: japanese business model is akin to Yakuza

Tagged games:

 

What do you think

Nintendo is God they never make a mistake 7 26.92%
 
Square the ones who to be blame 8 30.77%
 
I dont why i just hate Sony 2 7.69%
 
I 9 34.62%
 
Total:26
Wyrdness said:
DonFerrari said:

I think it is hardly probable that they had a working prototype without any kind of deal signed, they would have in the least a DOA or something of sort even more because Sony was touching Nintendo IPs (not games necessarily) to do it.

Have this whole team of SE left the company and joined Nintendo at the time of FFVII? Or are you talking something much more recent?

The was a partnership in place which is different from a signed deal as a partnership is when two or more entities come together on a business venture a partnership can be agreed but doesn't exactly have to be seen through which is common. The partnership here clearly had the intent of a cd based platform but no contract was in place for the actual product itself when it came into being.

Monolith are a former SE team they did Xenogears, at the time of FFVII Square put a lot of their focus on VII over other projects and even pulled people from other teams to work on it one of the teams who got hit hard was the Xenogears team this left the game in an inconsistent state (elements of that were even used in VII) when released and to make things worse Square began focusing less on non FF projects due to VII's success so the full vision and planned future installment were put on hold which prompted the team lead by Takahasi and his wife to leave in 1999 and form their own studio. They had a stint with Namco before being bought by Nintendo in the tail end of the Gamecube era Monolith are now Nintendo's current top first party team outside of the internal EPD units.

For a formal partnership to exist there will exist at least a MOU signed after the DOA already being signed. So thanks to agree that there were already signed deal between parties.

Thanks for the story on Monolith. Because my memory of it was that it was much more recent than FF7 time.

Leynos said:
DonFerrari said:

I think it is hardly probable that they had a working prototype without any kind of deal signed, they would have in the least a DOA or something of sort even more because Sony was touching Nintendo IPs (not games necessarily) to do it.

Have this whole team of SE left the company and joined Nintendo at the time of FFVII? Or are you talking something much more recent?

Xenogears began as Final Fantasy VII but SE felt it was too dark. Cut their budget but still let them make the game but were unable to fully finish the game.  That talent worked on SNES FF games and the Chrono series and left to what would become Monolith and develop the Xenosaga series. No, they didn't just jump to Nintendo. However they were unhappy at Namco I believe and somehow met with Nintendo and liked working with them with Gamecube and DS.

I would imagine seeing the stories from first party and some major publishers it is much better to work at first party studios.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Hynad said:
Azzanation said:

You can marry out of love and than decide money is more important afterwards, that stuff actually happens. So point still stands.

Than replace marriage with long term partner (Un-married) same results apply.

No. It doesn't stand. Business is business. In business you don't stick around with a given entity out of emotional attachment or empathy or what have you. You go where the money is, or where deals are better. That's what Squaresoft did. And history demonstrates that it was ultimately plenty healthy for their business. You lot try to include emotions into the mix and it's quite hilarious to say the least.

Ahh ... in business it happens quite a lot actually.  Partnerships years in the making stand even when a vendor offers a slightly better price.  Knowing what to expect from a vendor is hard to quantify but definitely part of the equation.  Loyalty is a thing, after all businesses are run by people.

I'm not saying that always happens but you seem to think that because the grass may seem greener on the other side that businesses always jump pastures.



In regards to the argument about companies going to where the deal is better I want to throw my two cents in. Somebody said that Sony offered a better deal so Square just took the chance and went there. I work in a company that offers products which are quite more expensive than our comepetition. Yet we still sell our stuff. If the argument is made that the customer only goes where the deal is better I'd lose my job, obviously.

The logic that only the best deal is considered is something we all learn in business 101 as the model of demand and offer but in reality it is just that, a model. Long term relationships are often more valuable than simple price and cost factors. How does my company still sell stuff? Because our customers know us and rely on our expertise, and they even know that we are more expensive yet still want to work with us. So ultimately the argument that Square just took the better deal should be doubted, especially in the light of how uch of a partner Nintendo and Square used to be.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

GoOnKid said:

In regards to the argument about companies going to where the deal is better I want to throw my two cents in. Somebody said that Sony offered a better deal so Square just took the chance and went there. I work in a company that offers products which are quite more expensive than our comepetition. Yet we still sell our stuff. If the argument is made that the customer only goes where the deal is better I'd lose my job, obviously.

The logic that only the best deal is considered is something we all learn in business 101 as the model of demand and offer but in reality it is just that, a model. Long term relationships are often more valuable than simple price and cost factors. How does my company still sell stuff? Because our customers know us and rely on our expertise, and they even know that we are more expensive yet still want to work with us. So ultimately the argument that Square just took the better deal should be doubted, especially in the light of how uch of a partner Nintendo and Square used to be.

Well it's not a better deal, but at least in the end Square sacrifice are pay off . In Business there is no rule of thumb or general theory like scientific fact. It's a matter of chance and possibility. It's like gambling. The problem is not whether it's wrong or right,  the problem is the attitude of Nintendo and Square. Both were childish. 



It's been 25 years and no one knows for sure except those in on those meetings. So what use is it to argue over who did what?



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
GoOnKid said:

In regards to the argument about companies going to where the deal is better I want to throw my two cents in. Somebody said that Sony offered a better deal so Square just took the chance and went there. I work in a company that offers products which are quite more expensive than our comepetition. Yet we still sell our stuff. If the argument is made that the customer only goes where the deal is better I'd lose my job, obviously.

The logic that only the best deal is considered is something we all learn in business 101 as the model of demand and offer but in reality it is just that, a model. Long term relationships are often more valuable than simple price and cost factors. How does my company still sell stuff? Because our customers know us and rely on our expertise, and they even know that we are more expensive yet still want to work with us. So ultimately the argument that Square just took the better deal should be doubted, especially in the light of how uch of a partner Nintendo and Square used to be.

That's also part of the deal though. The "best deal" isn't just the cheapest one. Quality is a massive consideration too. A company offering a high quality product at ¥2000 is offering a much better deal than a company offering a crappy product at ¥1500.

Your customers want to work with you because they think you're the better deal, regardless of the fact that you're more expensive.



padib said:
Alby_da_Wolf said:
LOL, Ninty's giant crow ended up pecking at Ninty's arse itself.

Ninty only did good to Square and got utterly shafted. To be honest not something to cheer, esp. that Nintendo's existence was almost jeopardised. The company that allowed console gaming to exist, don't forget that Sony basically stole the market from Nintendo, which mainly Nintendo had built, it paints another picture. You probably wouldn't be a Sony gamer had Nintendo not been a true raven.

You must be really young if you don't remember that there were far more console makers before Ninty conquered a near monopolistic market domination for almost ten years, interrupted just by the first Playstation. Sure, Ninty rose on the ashes of competitors burned by a big crisis, but from then on it actively prevented most of them to rise again and new competitors to rise for years, only Sega could barely compete for long period. Sure Sony just interrupted the monopoly, but it did nothing to increase plurality, MS could enter the market just by the brute force of its money and the force of its brand in PC market, while the new trimurti of console gaming merrily crushed poor Sega, the only survivor left, besides Ninty itself, of console golden age.
BTW, I'm not a Sony gamer, I'm a PC and Android one, the last console I owned was the Intellivision. I was on the brink of buying a PSV, because I tried it and it was the first portable of which I ever felt really comfortable with the form factor and control layout, but its commercial decline and the rise of cheap tablets made me change my mind. OTOH both my sister and some of my ex-gf's had a GameBoy, but I never liked it enough to buy one. Tried DS, I liked it more than GB, but still not enough, then 3DS came and I really didn't like its 3D screen. PSP, I liked some games, but unlike PSV, and despite having a control layout just a little different, it gave me hand cramps after playing for a while, so I didn't buy it either.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW! 
 


Ka-pi96 said:
GoOnKid said:

In regards to the argument about companies going to where the deal is better I want to throw my two cents in. Somebody said that Sony offered a better deal so Square just took the chance and went there. I work in a company that offers products which are quite more expensive than our comepetition. Yet we still sell our stuff. If the argument is made that the customer only goes where the deal is better I'd lose my job, obviously.

The logic that only the best deal is considered is something we all learn in business 101 as the model of demand and offer but in reality it is just that, a model. Long term relationships are often more valuable than simple price and cost factors. How does my company still sell stuff? Because our customers know us and rely on our expertise, and they even know that we are more expensive yet still want to work with us. So ultimately the argument that Square just took the better deal should be doubted, especially in the light of how uch of a partner Nintendo and Square used to be.

That's also part of the deal though. The "best deal" isn't just the cheapest one. Quality is a massive consideration too. A company offering a high quality product at ¥2000 is offering a much better deal than a company offering a crappy product at ¥1500.

Your customers want to work with you because they think you're the better deal, regardless of the fact that you're more expensive.

Yes and that's the thing. If you were a business who would you trust? A company that established a good relationship with you over quite a period of time or another one from a related but dfferent industry that pushed to enter the same market. It was a risky move by Square, no doubt, but in the end it seemed to pay off. However, perhaps it had been possible to not fuck up Nintendo's relationship at the same time. Other companies had parallel relations with Sega for example, so maybe Square would have been able to do as well. It's impossible to tell nowadays, I guess. But turning FF into a Playstation exclusive was definitely risky and backstabbed Nintendo who seemed pretty surprised by this move. What possible reason could have been there for Square to turn to a newby in the playground and go all in with all games from that moment on. One big reason was obviously the money and another the creative freedom. I'm sure both would have been negotiable with Nintendo as well, however.

It's an interesting story and it ultimately lead to the competitive situation we're in today.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Leynos said:
It's been 25 years and no one knows for sure except those in on those meetings. So what use is it to argue over who did what?

salt and trolling basicly



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Instead of seeking to convince others, we can be open to changing our own minds, and seek out information that contradicts our own steadfast point of view. Maybe it’ll turn out that those who disagree with you actually have a solid grasp of the facts. There’s a slight possibility that, after all, you’re the one who’s wrong.

Alby_da_Wolf said:
padib said:

Ninty only did good to Square and got utterly shafted. To be honest not something to cheer, esp. that Nintendo's existence was almost jeopardised. The company that allowed console gaming to exist, don't forget that Sony basically stole the market from Nintendo, which mainly Nintendo had built, it paints another picture. You probably wouldn't be a Sony gamer had Nintendo not been a true raven.

You must be really young if you don't remember that there were far more console makers before Ninty conquered a near monopolistic market domination for almost ten years, interrupted just by the first Playstation. Sure, Ninty rose on the ashes of competitors burned by a big crisis, but from then on it actively prevented most of them to rise again and new competitors to rise for years, only Sega could barely compete for long period. Sure Sony just interrupted the monopoly, but it did nothing to increase plurality, MS could enter the market just by the brute force of its money and the force of its brand in PC market, while the new trimurti of console gaming merrily crushed poor Sega, the only survivor left, besides Ninty itself, of console golden age.
BTW, I'm not a Sony gamer, I'm a PC and Android one, the last console I owned was the Intellivision. I was on the brink of buying a PSV, because I tried it and it was the first portable of which I ever felt really comfortable with the form factor and control layout, but its commercial decline and the rise of cheap tablets made me change my mind. OTOH both my sister and some of my ex-gf's had a GameBoy, but I never liked it enough to buy one. Tried DS, I liked it more than GB, but still not enough, then 3DS came and I really didn't like its 3D screen. PSP, I liked some games, but unlike PSV, and despite having a control layout just a little different, it gave me hand cramps after playing for a while, so I didn't buy it either.

And you must be really old if you think anything pre-Sony was the "console golden age". No offence intended, but...come on! PS1/N64 was when console gaming became great!

Also, at the idea Sony "stole" the market from Nintendo. Somebody's bias is showing...