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 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

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.

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.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 13 April 2020

Around the Network
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."

This thread has completely degenerated.

Nobody is talking about business success. The angle of the thread is of behaviors and ethics. The title of the thread is "Nintendo banned Square from offices for 10 years..." aka Nintendo is bad. The truth is completely the opposite, Nintendo was almost sent to financial ruin after this back-stab of a move was made, and Nintendo was just correct in reacting vehemently against it.

No matter how many posts people will make about likening this affair to Rare (wtf?) or to the success of FFVII, if we are talking who was right and who was wrong, the answer is clear, Square backstabbed Nintendo while being lured away by Sony, and the shock of everyone at Squaresoft when it happened (per the article) is proof of it. The reaction of Nintendo is proof of it. The bending-over attitude of Sony towards Square is proof of it.

And Sony is very conspicuous in its dealings with Nintendo from the get-go. Sure it's business, but there is shady business and there is legit business. What Sony and Square did, imho, was very sleazy. In contrast, the Rare buyout was all done legally and in the open between Nintendo, Rare and Microsoft, it was all legit.

And I have no idea what "jealousy of Iwata" even means, it blows my mind.



padib said:

This thread has completely degenerated.

Nobody is talking about business success. The angle of the thread is of behaviors and ethics. The title of the thread is "Nintendo banned Square from offices for 10 years..." aka Nintendo is bad. The truth is completely the opposite, Nintendo was almost sent to financial ruin after this back-stab of a move was made, and Nintendo was just correct in reacting vehemently against it.

No matter how many posts people will make about likening this affair to Rare (wtf?) or to the success of FFVII, if we are talking who was right and who was wrong, the answer is clear, Square backstabbed Nintendo while being lured away by Sony, and the shock of everyone at Squaresoft when it happened (per the article) is proof of it. The reaction of Nintendo is proof of it. The bending-over attitude of Sony towards Square is proof of it.

And Sony is very conspicuous in its dealings with Nintendo from the get-go. Sure it's business, but there is shady business and there is legit business. What Sony and Square did, imho, was very sleazy. In contrast, the Rare buyout was all done legally and in the open between Nintendo, Rare and Microsoft, it was all legit.

And I have no idea what "jealousy of Iwata" even means, it blows my mind.

If you want to reply to someone be direct instead of saying some posts ago "I won't even reply to him", and them trying to indirectly reply something.

There are numerous reports of Donkey Kong Country leaving fellows at Nintendo full of envy and jealosly.



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."

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!

I'm only asking you based on this line: "why would you keep buying the more expensive one?"

DonFerrari said:
Ka-pi96 said:

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.

Um, I only think about the people who researched a lot about the history of mistakes from a company which they don't even like but somehow completely ignore/forget the history of mistakes from their favorite one.



Around the Network
padib said:

This thread has completely degenerated.

Nobody is talking about business success. The angle of the thread is of behaviors and ethics. The title of the thread is "Nintendo banned Square from offices for 10 years..." aka Nintendo is bad. The truth is completely the opposite, Nintendo was almost sent to financial ruin after this back-stab of a move was made, and Nintendo was just correct in reacting vehemently against it.

No matter how many posts people will make about likening this affair to Rare (wtf?) or to the success of FFVII, if we are talking who was right and who was wrong, the answer is clear, Square backstabbed Nintendo while being lured away by Sony, and the shock of everyone at Squaresoft when it happened (per the article) is proof of it. The reaction of Nintendo is proof of it. The bending-over attitude of Sony towards Square is proof of it.

And Sony is very conspicuous in its dealings with Nintendo from the get-go. Sure it's business, but there is shady business and there is legit business. What Sony and Square did, imho, was very sleazy. In contrast, the Rare buyout was all done legally and in the open between Nintendo, Rare and Microsoft, it was all legit.

And I have no idea what "jealousy of Iwata" even means, it blows my mind.

That’s a nice way to present how looking at a single side of a coin looks like.

Kudos.



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.

Crystal Chronicles came out in 2003 in Japan, 2004 in the US (published by Nintendo of America.) It was made through a Square shell company called The Game Designers' Studio, which was funded in part by Hiroshi Yamauchi as a peace offering to Square. 

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance came out in February 2003 in Japan and released later that year in the US. So that's about 9 years after Final Fantasy VI released, 7 years after Chrono Trigger, and just under 7 years after SMRPG. Sword of Mana also released in 2003, and was jointly developed by Brownie Brown, a Nintendo subsidiary founded by former Square staffers. As with CC, Nintendo handled publishing outside of Japan for these games. Square had also begun to port the earlier Final Fantasy games to the Game Boy Advance by then. So since these games didn't happen overnight, you have to figure that Square and Nintendo had begun talking again by 2002, perhaps earlier. My opinion is that there probably was always some hesitant communication between the two even during the worst of the Square-Nintendo feud. 

Also by that point, Square was Square Enix, and technically, the Square half didn't exist anymore. When the "merger" happened, Square stockholders got .81 shares of Square Enix for every share of Square, while Enix stockholders got full 1:1 value for their shares. It was technically a buyout of the smaller, weaker Square by the much bigger, stronger Enix. 

Unlike Square, Enix still maintained friendly relations with Nintendo, and Nintendo actually treated Enix as equals, which was something no other third party ever saw from Nintendo, not even Square. Dragon Quest was, and continues to be, a bigger seller than Final Fantasy in Japan, while Nintendo has returned the favor by continuing to localize and publish Dragon Quest in the US even despite less-than-stellar sales. Enix released a couple of N64 games (Wonder Project J2 and Mischief Makers) and continued to release games on the Game Boy, including the early Dragon Quest games. Once Square and Enix merged, it was probably a lot easier for Yamauchi to deal with Enix's leaders Yasuhiro Fukushima and Keiji Honda, who were now in ultimate authority of the new company, as well as Yoichi Wada, who didn't have the Squaresoft baggage from the PS1 era attached to him.

Last edited by SanAndreasX - on 13 April 2020

padib said:

This thread has completely degenerated.

Nobody is talking about business success. The angle of the thread is of behaviors and ethics. The title of the thread is "Nintendo banned Square from offices for 10 years..." aka Nintendo is bad. The truth is completely the opposite, Nintendo was almost sent to financial ruin after this back-stab of a move was made, and Nintendo was just correct in reacting vehemently against it.

No matter how many posts people will make about likening this affair to Rare (wtf?) or to the success of FFVII, if we are talking who was right and who was wrong, the answer is clear, Square backstabbed Nintendo while being lured away by Sony, and the shock of everyone at Squaresoft when it happened (per the article) is proof of it. The reaction of Nintendo is proof of it. The bending-over attitude of Sony towards Square is proof of it.

And Sony is very conspicuous in its dealings with Nintendo from the get-go. Sure it's business, but there is shady business and there is legit business. What Sony and Square did, imho, was very sleazy. In contrast, the Rare buyout was all done legally and in the open between Nintendo, Rare and Microsoft, it was all legit.

And I have no idea what "jealousy of Iwata" even means, it blows my mind.

One interesting thing I've read in NeoGAF, but sadly can't find source materials behind the posts, so take it for what you will, is that Yamauchi wasn't necessarily angry with Square for jumping ship, but for supposedly talking to Enix's president and talking him into moving Dragon Quest VII onto the PS1 from the N64. If that's true, then I can definitely see why Yamauchi would have felt betrayed by Square. Holding on to Dragon Quest VII would have kept N64 competitive with PS1 in Japan, if not the US, and Dragon Quest VII would have been much easier to fit onto a N64 cartridge than FFVII-IX were since it didn't have FMV, just a butt-ton of dialogue that would have needed to be packed into the cartridge.

So it's possible that it may have been the loss of Dragon Quest VII rather than Final Fantasy VII that upset Yamauchi. And if true, that would be kind of a dick move from Square.



SanAndreasX said:

One interesting thing I've read in NeoGAF, but sadly can't find source materials behind the posts, so take it for what you will, is that Yamauchi wasn't necessarily angry with Square for jumping ship, but for supposedly talking to Enix's president and talking him into moving Dragon Quest VII onto the PS1 from the N64.

I don't see how that could be true since FF was one of the biggest RPG series in the world and probably the biggest on the SNES. I could see the DQ talk making them angrier (if it really happened) but VII's move to PS definitely soured their relationship.



SanAndreasX 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.

Crystal Chronicles came out in 2003 in Japan, 2004 in the US (published by Nintendo of America.) It was made through a Square shell company called The Game Designers' Studio, which was funded in part by Hiroshi Yamauchi as a peace offering to Square. 

Final Fantasy Tactics Advance came out in February 2003 in Japan and released later that year in the US. So that's about 9 years after Final Fantasy VI released, 7 years after Chrono Trigger, and just under 7 years after SMRPG. Sword of Mana also released in 2003, and was jointly developed by Brownie Brown, a Nintendo subsidiary founded by former Square staffers. As with CC, Nintendo handled publishing outside of Japan for these games. Square had also begun to port the earlier Final Fantasy games to the Game Boy Advance by then. So since these games didn't happen overnight, you have to figure that Square and Nintendo had begun talking again by 2002, perhaps earlier. My opinion is that there probably was always some hesitant communication between the two even during the worst of the Square-Nintendo feud. 

Also by that point, Square was Square Enix, and technically, the Square half didn't exist anymore. When the "merger" happened, Square stockholders got .81 shares of Square Enix for every share of Square, while Enix stockholders got full 1:1 value for their shares. It was technically a buyout of the smaller, weaker Square by the much bigger, stronger Enix. 

Unlike Square, Enix still maintained friendly relations with Nintendo, and Nintendo actually treated Enix as equals, which was something no other third party ever saw from Nintendo, not even Square. Dragon Quest was, and continues to be, a bigger seller than Final Fantasy in Japan, while Nintendo has returned the favor by continuing to localize and publish Dragon Quest in the US even despite less-than-stellar sales. Enix released a couple of N64 games (Wonder Project J2 and Mischief Makers) and continued to release games on the Game Boy, including the early Dragon Quest games. Once Square and Enix merged, it was probably a lot easier for Yamauchi to deal with Enix's leaders Yasuhiro Fukushima and Keiji Honda, who were now in ultimate authority of the new company, as well as Yoichi Wada, who didn't have the Squaresoft baggage from the PS1 era attached to him.

And that is why Nintendo got 3DS remakes of Dragon Quest VII and VIII, along with the various spin-offs on their other consoles. Plus, when it was announced that Dragon Quest XI was going to the NX (later the Switch), it was a request to Square Enix by the late-Satoru Iwata being fulfilled, even though no one in the public had any idea what the NX was at the time.