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
HoangNhatAnh 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!

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

That wasn't the whole line though. "the same" was also there. A simplification, yes, but developing for one console vs another is largely the same. There are a lot of other things involved, but they were largely covered by the different prices. The point of that analogy was to show two deals which were basically the same, but one with better terms than the other.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

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

That wasn't the whole line though. "the same" was also there. A simplification, yes, but developing for one console vs another is largely the same. There are a lot of other things involved, but they were largely covered by the different prices. The point of that analogy was to show two deals which were basically the same, but one with better terms than the other.

I only know that Switch is very easy to make games for, and the cost is definitely smaller than PS5/Xbox SX



HoangNhatAnh said:
Ka-pi96 said:

That wasn't the whole line though. "the same" was also there. A simplification, yes, but developing for one console vs another is largely the same. There are a lot of other things involved, but they were largely covered by the different prices. The point of that analogy was to show two deals which were basically the same, but one with better terms than the other.

I only know that Switch is very easy to make games for, and the cost is definitely smaller than PS5/Xbox SX

It's probably the same actually.

Just because you can spend a lot more on graphics etc. on PS5/Xbox doesn't mean you have to.



Squaresoft was run by people who let themselves be bought by Sony and back then it was a new thing that console manufacturers moneyhatted third parties. Unsurprisingly, Nintendo wasn't happy that a company that was saved by their success on the NES was backstabbing them about a decade later, and on top of that, during a time of a collaboration that signaled an even closer relationship between Nintendo and Squaresoft than ever before; Super Mario RPG wasn't released in PAL territories because the relationship between Nintendo and Squaresoft ended so abruptly.

For a long time the world was fed with lies, such as Squaresoft went with PlayStation because of CDs when in reality it was all about money. The interview still has people who want to dress up the lie to this day, but when it comes straight from the horse's mouth that Squaresoft made a deal with Sony, then there's no room for doubt anymore. Sony bought themselves into the console market and their deal with Squaresoft wasn't their only one. That, however, goes against the mythos that PlayStation got all the games because Sony is a better console manufacturer, and that it wasn't until Microsoft entered the fray that the moneyhatting on a big scale became common practice in the video game industry.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

I only know that Switch is very easy to make games for, and the cost is definitely smaller than PS5/Xbox SX

It's probably the same actually.

Just because you can spend a lot more on graphics etc. on PS5/Xbox doesn't mean you have to.

Almost all 3rd party games on PS4/Xbox 1 look and run better than Switch ver, you know



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh said:
Ka-pi96 said:

It's probably the same actually.

Just because you can spend a lot more on graphics etc. on PS5/Xbox doesn't mean you have to.

Almost all 3rd party games on PS4/Xbox 1 look and run better than Switch ver, you know

And? What's that got to do with anything?

Literally every game I've got on Steam looks and plays WAY better on my PC than on my laptop. It cost the developers the exact same to make the game regardless of which one I actually play it on though.



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.

Wut?Business is business.Being loyal to someone in a personal matter is one thing, but when you have to run a company you have to make some though decisions.With the sucess of the Ps1 FFs, Square obviously did the right thing.

Not saying that Nintendo, Sony or Square was wrong to do any of the stuff they did(If I were Nintendo I would certainly be pissed), but saying that Nintendo is the victim here is just stupid, or at the very least non sensical from a business perspective.



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

Spike0503 said:
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.

It's possible to depart with a company on amiable terms, but if you poach some of the company's other talent after you leave, you can make a safe bet that any goodwill you had when you left will be gone no matter how amiable the original parting was. At the time, Dragon Quest still made a lot more money for Nintendo than Final Fantasy did. So I can definitely see Yamauchi being disappointed but accepting over Square leaving but going apeshit over the idea that Square took Enix with them.

It would be nice to get some perspective from Yuji Hori (DQ producer) or Keiji Honda (Enix president who still holds an honorary chairmanship at Square Enix) on why Dragon Quest VII was moved beyond the usual speculations of low CD-ROM costs and whatnot. Keeping DQVII would have made things much more evenly balanced between N64 and PS1 in Japan, though it wouldn't have made a difference in the US. At least Nintendo would have had a major RPG to appease US N64 owners who were complaining about N64's almost complete lack of RPGs, and the difference in Japanese sales would have enticed more Japanese devs to stay on board with Nintendo.



Great read.

Ultimately, Nintendo's own arrogance and strong arming led to the creation of their strongest competitor who has dominated them and the industry for 3 generations.

Not only that but it more importantly marked the end of Nintendo being the home to Japanese third parties, replaced with Sony and third parties for the large part have not looked back ever since. I can only imagine how dominant Nintendo would be if Sony never stepped in and if SE and others continued to focus on Nintendo only.

Don't know much about Japanese corporate culture and so can't say how outstanding these reactions from Nintendo and Square were or still are but whats clear is that for Square it was a massively risky move.

A massively risky move, that paid of above anyone's expectations. FF7 became the best selling Square game in history, the second best selling PS1 game, sold almost triple the amount of FF6, and revolutionized the JRPG genre on a global scale, a genre Square excelled at. Sqaure just put out hit after hit on PS1 and with PS1's global success was able to get a global audience that they would have never gotten with Nintendo. PS2 was a continuation of those efforts allowing SE to launch their new blockbuster IP Kingdom Hearts.

Square fully backing Playstation is what allowed Playstation to be the behemoth it is now and in turn in built Square to a level of success unseen by Japanese third parties.

This is still to this day, imo, the biggest betrayal in the gaming industry considering how it forever changed the landscape going forward.



src said:
Great read.

Ultimately, Nintendo's own arrogance and strong arming led to the creation of their strongest competitor who has dominated them and the industry for 3 generations.

Not only that but it more importantly marked the end of Nintendo being the home to Japanese third parties, replaced with Sony and third parties for the large part have not looked back ever since. I can only imagine how dominant Nintendo would be if Sony never stepped in and if SE and others continued to focus on Nintendo only.

Don't know much about Japanese corporate culture and so can't say how outstanding these reactions from Nintendo and Square were or still are but whats clear is that for Square it was a massively risky move.

A massively risky move, that paid of above anyone's expectations. FF7 became the best selling Square game in history, the second best selling PS1 game, sold almost triple the amount of FF6, and revolutionized the JRPG genre on a global scale, a genre Square excelled at. Sqaure just put out hit after hit on PS1 and with PS1's global success was able to get a global audience that they would have never gotten with Nintendo. PS2 was a continuation of those efforts allowing SE to launch their new blockbuster IP Kingdom Hearts.

Square fully backing Playstation is what allowed Playstation to be the behemoth it is now and in turn in built Square to a level of success unseen by Japanese third parties.

This is still to this day, imo, the biggest betrayal in the gaming industry considering how it forever changed the landscape going forward.

It's a weird situation. Sony definitely did well with the arrangement, no question. But Square ended up collapsing under its own weight within a few short years after FF7. According to the interview they were teetering on the edge of bankruptcy in 2000, when FFIX was released. The movie was merely the nail in the coffin. They also ended up losing Sakaguchi and a lot of their other talent over the fallout from TSW. FFX-2 was what saved them from total collapse before Enix absorbed them into Square Enix. They were successful, but they spent money like drunken sailors at a Bangkok brothel. And Sakaguchi hasn't been a roaring success since he left. I haven't even seen any mobile games from his studio since Terra Battle, let alone console games.  Maybe they'd ultimately have been better off in the long term staying with Nintendo, who knows? In retrospect, Square didn't seem capable of coping with their sudden global success.