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
DonFerrari on 13 April 2020
Nautilus said:
Did it really last 10 years?When did Crystal Chronicles launch?Because as far as I remember that title was thought to be the game that healed Nintendo and Square relationship.

Some replies on it say that it was more of a Enix thing than Squaresoft. So perhaps after the merger there was still bad blood with half the company not being well received over there.



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
Nautilus on 13 April 2020
DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:
Did it really last 10 years?When did Crystal Chronicles launch?Because as far as I remember that title was thought to be the game that healed Nintendo and Square relationship.

Some replies on it say that it was more of a Enix thing than Squaresoft. So perhaps after the merger there was still bad blood with half the company not being well received over there.

Oh ok, thanks!



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

DonFerrari on 13 April 2020
Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

Some replies on it say that it was more of a Enix thing than Squaresoft. So perhaps after the merger there was still bad blood with half the company not being well received over there.

Oh ok, thanks!

Doesn't know if it is true, but it makes sense with very large companies that some division would have better relationship than another when a merger occur.

Like with the company I work for, one of the main reasons it was acquired was due to it having superb customer relationship while the company that purchased us had burned a lot of bridges and had bad relationship overall.



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."

HoangNhatAnh on 13 April 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

By ignoring some facts, of course only Nintendo had fault in this, Square and Sony didn't do anything wrong to you.

Nope, Square and Sony did nothing wrong as far as I'm concerned.

I'd also say the only thing Nintendo did wrong was not making themselves a more attractive partner to keep working with. So I'm not even saying they were "bad", just that working with Sony was a more attractive proposition. I mean, if your supermarket charged ¥1000 for a newspaper and then another store opened nearby that sold the same newspaper for ¥400, why would you keep buying the more expensive one?

So none is wrong, good. If we count console prices, PS5/Xbox SX for sure will be much more expensive than Switch, right?

Xxain said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

I am a customer, not a 3rd party so as long as some of their games are still good to me, i don't care about that, but obviously a lot of non-Nintendo fans (especially Sony fans) care about this matter for some reasons.

Cool.... Ya do know this is kinda the topic of the thread right? If you are not interested in discussing said topic then you shouldnt be here. Btw, Nintendo vs third  parties has been the major topic on this side of the forum since the birth of the site, mostly initiated by Nintendo fans.

Not really, just curious about the reason why many non-Nintendo fans are here and their knowledge about all Nintendo's mistakes in the past. I just wonder if they also know about all the mistakes which Sony made in the past too since all of them are Sony fans. Really rarely to see any Sony fan mention about that.



Hynad on 13 April 2020
TheBraveGallade said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Even in business ethics it wasn't a mistake. There's nothing ethically questionable about choosing not to do business anymore with a company that insists on dictating their own terms and instead doing business with a company that gives you more respect/freedom. There was no "betrayal", they didn't "owe" Nintendo anything.

square and playstation's relationships has only ever been that of a tird party and major developer. an important one but still....

square and nintendo's was almost that of a psudo sencond party dev, like what rare became almost immediatly upon square's departure. nintendo subsitized ALL localization of FF1-6, and more telling, they gve them mario to work with for SMRPG, something that nintendo arely does NOWADAYS, and was almost unheard of back then, we all know how protective nintendo is of their ip....

Just no.

Sony bought Square shares in the late 90s early 2000s. They helped them staying afloat during the Spirit Within debacle. Which they co-funded with Square.

Sony and Square have had a good relationship since FFVII, that has been very similar to Nintendo’s during the 90.

And Nintendo didn’t give them Mario. They went to Square because they had the RPG expertise. But Miyamoto managed both the teams at Nintendo and Squaresoft as they worked together on that game.


There is a lot of misinformation in this thread. As per usual when Nintendo isn’t portrayed as being faultless. 

Last edited by Hynad - on 13 April 2020

Around the Network
Ljink96 on 13 April 2020

Damn, I knew something was up. Square didn't support the 64 at all. Like even other Nintendo NES-SNES stalwarts like Capcom, Namco, Konami, Enix(Yes, Enix released Wonder Project J on 64) tried to support it but Square was nowhere to be found. They really did help ensure the 64 lost to PS1. Man, that's nuts. Nintendo has been quite resilient though, I mean look at them now. They have Monolith Soft, or what was left behind of old Square Soft, so I guess it worked out for Sony and Nintendo.



Ljink96 on 13 April 2020
Hynad said:
TheBraveGallade said:

square and playstation's relationships has only ever been that of a tird party and major developer. an important one but still....

square and nintendo's was almost that of a psudo sencond party dev, like what rare became almost immediatly upon square's departure. nintendo subsitized ALL localization of FF1-6, and more telling, they gve them mario to work with for SMRPG, something that nintendo arely does NOWADAYS, and was almost unheard of back then, we all know how protective nintendo is of their ip....

Just no.

Sony bought Square shares in the late 90s early 2000s. They helped them staying afloat after the Spirit Within debacle.

Sony and Square have had a good relationship since FFVII, that has been very similar to Nintendo’s during the 90.

Well, the Enix merger is what really helped Square stay afloat. The gains were mutual to both companies but Enix was in far less danger than Square at that time. While Square Soft's poor management, spending, and of course Spirits Within almost took them down, Enix's issue at that time was the constant delay of Dragon Quest VII which worsened financial projections for them. Thus, boy met girl or something like that. 



Hynad on 13 April 2020
Ljink96 said:
Hynad said:

Just no.

Sony bought Square shares in the late 90s early 2000s. They helped them staying afloat after the Spirit Within debacle.

Sony and Square have had a good relationship since FFVII, that has been very similar to Nintendo’s during the 90.

Well, the Enix merger is what really helped Square stay afloat. The gains were mutual to both companies but Enix was in far less danger than Square at that time. While Square Soft's poor management, spending, and of course Spirits Within almost took them down, Enix's issue at that time was the constant delay of Dragon Quest VII which worsened financial projections for them. Thus, boy met girl or something like that. 

Well, I was obviously talking of what was going on prior to the merger. -____-



DonFerrari on 13 April 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

So none is wrong, good. If we count console prices, PS5/Xbox SX for sure will be much more expensive than Switch, right?

We're talking about companies deciding which platforms to develop their games for. Will the fees/royalties for PS5/Xbox be more expensive than for Switch? I've no idea, but even if they are they won't be "much more expensive".

Besides, one also needs to take into account potential return on investment rather than just how much it costs to develop for a given platform. And on that basis... you're better off going multiplatform 99% of the time!

It impress me that so many people in VGC ignores that companies work to maximize profit in almost 100% the situation, so yes most of times they will be multiplatform, they will avoid multiplatform only if the porting cost doesn't return enough profit to make sense (because resources are finite so even if the port makes profit not always it will be done because they can make more profit on the same resource doing something else, be it a DLC or a new game). But we have so many that think companies think like them based on hate and love.



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."

DonFerrari on 13 April 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
DonFerrari said:

It impress me that so many people in VGC ignores that companies work to maximize profit in almost 100% the situation, so yes most of times they will be multiplatform, they will avoid multiplatform only if the porting cost doesn't return enough profit to make sense (because resources are finite so even if the port makes profit not always it will be done because they can make more profit on the same resource doing something else, be it a DLC or a new game). But we have so many that think companies think like them based on hate and love.

Exactly. Square going temporarily Sony exclusive wasn't "bad" or "betrayal" or whatever, it was just business, and it was a huge success for both parties too! Same for Microsoft buying Rare, albeit that one wasn't so successful.

Well it wasn't perfect result, but better than the company closing out. And unfortunatelly Nintendo didn't want to buy the other half at the time. They probably had their reason to think it wouldn't profit from it even if we all disagree and think it was just the jealously of Iwata.



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."