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

They lost Sakaguchi and let Tetsuya Takahashi walk. They didn't then and still don't have talent as great as those two and I cannot stand Nomura. I liked TWEWY but Nomura is a one-trick pony and his trick sucks for the most part.



Bite my shiny metal cockpit!

Around the Network
SanAndreasX said:
Spike0503 said:

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.

Yes but FF was important to Nintendo in the US market. The move to PS alone without including the Enix thing had to ruffle some feathers, specially on Yamauchi who was supposedly specially petty on these sorts of things.

That's the way I read it anyway. I can agree to disagree with you.



Spike0503 said:
SanAndreasX said:

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.

Yes but FF was important to Nintendo in the US market. The move to PS alone without including the Enix thing had to ruffle some feathers, specially on Yamauchi who was supposedly specially petty on these sorts of things.

That's the way I read it anyway. I can agree to disagree with you.

Retrospectively, yes. Again, at the time, not so much.  Yamauchi could be petty (and according to others who knew him, like Henk Rogers of the Tetris Company, he could also be a sweet guy if he felt like it), but he was also very myopic and Japan-focused in a lot of ways, and RPGs were one of those things he was culturally myopic about. At the time, they were a niche product in the US. Nobody believed in them in the US. They tended to be expensive to localize but gave poor returns on the investment. Bernie Stolar, the infamous Sega of America president, started out as president of Sony Computer Entertainment when the PS1 launched, and he had the same anti-RPG attitude at Sony that he did later on at Sega, saying that RPGs would never sell enough to be profitable. Had he still been president of Sony in 1997, FF7 probably wouldn't have been localized unless Square did it themselves, and they'd have been on their own as far as marketing. He kept Arc the Lad out of the US until years after he was gone. For its part, Nintendo took a loss localizing Earthbound (though the advertising campaign didn't help any), and Yamauchi would have been looking more at Dragon Quest sales numbers in Japan than Final Fantasy sales numbers overseas, as well as the much greater fan loyalty DQ tends to inspire compared to FF. Sakaguchi has said on numerous occasions that FF6 was an expensive sales flop outside of Japan, mostly when Western fans ask him why it doesn't get localized more often, so I doubt Yamauchi expected VII to do any better overseas.



SanAndreasX said:
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. 

The merger between Square and Enix was in talks long before then though. It was FF:TSW that led Square taking a massive loss and posting their first quarterly loss. They weren't really bleeding dry but it led to doubts about the merger. The timing of the movie's loss was also bad, as it was during the generational leap so PS2 titles were still in development and needed funding before release. Hence the Sony share buyout.

Once FFX and KH were out, 2002, Square posted record breaking profits. The merger went ahead and SE was formed.

Talent leaving is part of the gaming industry. Creatives want to take hold of their own projects, work on different franchises etc and since each company only has a set amount of projects/ directorial positions, talent moves a lot in the gaming industry.

Honestly, Sakaguchi leaving hurt Sakaguchi far more than Square.

Definitely not. Sony saw that the gaming market did not have to be concentrated in NA and JP. They opened up a market, EU, larger than both NA and JP, and with the PS2 showed how to sell gaming consoles on a truly global level to less developed countries on a level that Nintendo could have never dreamed of. Even to this day, Sony has presence in far more countries, many of which Nintendo does not even officially sell in.

Its hard to argue that Square and Sony did not make their best move.



Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

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.

The gap in power between ps5/xbox se and switch is way bigger than ps4/xbox 1 and switch. Gaming cost keeps increasing each gen with more power so not so sure about that.



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh said:
Ka-pi96 said:

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.

The gap in power between ps5/xbox se and switch is way bigger than ps4/xbox 1 and switch. Gaming cost keeps increasing each gen with more power so not so sure about that.

And that's still only going to result in more expensive development for those games that really try to push the boundary and get the best graphics etc that they possibly can. The majority of games aren't going for the absolute best possible graphics though. They'll continue to make them how they want to and if they don't take full advantage of all of the power on those systems that they possibly can they aren't going to care.

Besides, no matter how powerful PS5/Xbox are PCs will always be more powerful. And the vast majority of 3rd party games (and a lot of 1st party games it seems) will have PC versions still.

And let's not forget where this came from. My original analogy was simplified, as analogies always are. The price wasn't literal. It was representing the terms. Better terms = more attractive deal. When talking about which platforms to develop for the importance of the cost of development and/or porting is massively outweighed by the importance of the potential sales it could get on that platform. Which is way I said before that being multiplatform is better 99% of the time. Things weren't the same back in the era this thread was about, when things were harder to port and distribute on different platforms. But now that it's easier than ever to be multiplatform you really should be unless you're literally the one that made that specific platform.

Last edited by Ka-pi96 - on 15 April 2020

Ka-pi96 said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

The gap in power between ps5/xbox se and switch is way bigger than ps4/xbox 1 and switch. Gaming cost keeps increasing each gen with more power so not so sure about that.

And that's still only going to result in more expensive development for those games that really try to push the boundary and get the best graphics etc that they possibly can. The majority of games aren't going for the absolute best possible graphics though. They'll continue to make them how they want to and if they don't take full advantage of all of the power on those systems that they possibly can they aren't going to care.

Besides, no matter how powerful PS5/Xbox are PCs will always be more powerful. And the vast majority of 3rd party games (and a lot of 1st party games it seems) will have PC versions still.

And let's not forget where this came from. My original analogy was simplified, as analogies always are. The price wasn't literal. It was representing the terms. Better terms = more attractive deal. When talking about which platforms to develop for the importance of the cost of development and/or porting is massively outweighed by the importance of the potential sales it could get on that platform. Which is way I said before that being multiplatform is better 99% of the time. Things weren't the same back in the era this thread was about, when things were harder to port and distribute on different platforms. But now that it's easier than ever to be multiplatform you really should be unless you're literally the one that made that specific platform.

And at least for the first 2 years, 3rd party games will use base xbox 1 as target platform, so nothing will change.



HoangNhatAnh 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.

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.

The problem is, not everyone who criticize Nintendo , Sony or Microsoft means they hate the company. You need to learn to be open minded, is like you hate every critique and input people have towards Nintendo. jeesh  



padib said:
HollyGamer said:

Actually Nintendo was bad at that time and 99% developer and game publisher agree . This article not picking any side just stating a real fact. Even Nintendo employee agree and another prove isNintendo has changed a lot since then, which great. 

This happen on N64 and FF7 decisison , before that (SNES) it's  diffrent story. 

Nintendo had a different relationship with Squaresoft than it did with Capcom and Konami. They funded their games, and also lent them their Mario IP (Super Mario RPG), which was very rare with Nintendo. Their relationship with Square was very unique and their departure from Nintendo was seen as a severe betrayal, especially becoming exclusive to the Playstation and Sony giving them the 1st party treatment, luring them away from Nintendo was a huge betrayal and a very sneaky move by Sony. Such moneyhatting was a new practice at the time, and Sony knew that they were trying to steal the apple of Nintendo's eye. That's why they bent so far backwards to attract them, to give them support and funding, and even celebrated hard with them when FFVII succeeded. All is fair in love and war, but Sony's move was a threat to Nintendo and Nintendo took it as a threat and an insult, and they were right to do it in my point of view.

Also, the N64 didn't release yet when all of this happened, the SNES was still in its lifecycle when Square departed from Nintendo. Square decided to make the jump at the urgency of its engineers and esp. of Sakaguchi, who felt like he couldn't realize his vision on the N64 dev kits vs Playstation dev kits, due to less polygon counts and limited media space. So this is from the SNES time, the N64 was not yet released. All this is described in the article you linked to.

Also, bad is very relative. Nintendo being "bad" is what allowed it to actually resurrect the video game market in America. How was Nintendo bad? It's simple: they limited the amount of games each developer could make to 5 titles per year. They also required exclusive development to their console and put severe pressure on developers to produce games only for Nintendo. They also charged high royalty fees. However all this is what led to Nintendo's platform being viable in the US and even in Japan, due to the overall quality of their games library.

However times were changing and devs needed more freedom and flexibility. Also, the N64 was limiting the creative freedom of the developers. So, what Sony offered was very welcome by developers, even those who had a very strong partnership with Nintendo. In the end, some developers were very angry at Nintendo for their business practices, but history shows that what Nintendo did was not really bad at all. Actually without it you probably wouldn't be a console gamer today.

I agree that Nintendo became a much better company today, mostly thanks to Satoru Iwata's agreeable mentality, and they have a much better relationship with 3rd parties today for sure. But what happened with Square was very much a mistake on Square and on Sony's part. Also, notice that Sony had not played nice with Nintendo when they partnered with them to make the Nintendo Playstation. The history of betrayal is not new between them, there was a pattern, and for some inconspicuous reason, Sony was always involved in the cases of major betrayal. It begs the question, was Sony looking for its own greatness since the begining? We will never really know, but one thing is for sure: when Sony tried to steal royalties and licensing authority from Nintendo on the Nintendo Playstation, and tried to subvert Nintendo, they learned one big lesson, that Nintendo is a king and you don't try to subvert a king. They also started a cycle of betrayal. Thankfully Nintendo being true to its pedigree, was able to survive the devastation that Sony Playstation caused their brand. Not only that, they pushed back Sony in the Portable space, while everyone was predicting Nintendo's extinction. With almost no 3rd party support, Nintendo trudged through the gamecube and game boy eras. This threatened their very existence. Yet with all that, articles and posts like these try to show Nintendo as the enemy, when the moves that Sony did almost brought Nintendo's ruin. But Nintendo was stronger than people thought, and reinvented itself, and rebranded itself, and took the world by storm, a few times. And now they are what they are today due to their awesome resilience.

It makes you see this story from another light I hope.

So in your logic  it's Sony fault by inviting them (Square ) to Playstation ??? Also is Sony fault by making CD on Playstation also Nintendo is have a great decision by using cartridge??? Or is Square fault by trying to become innovative with their new FF series???   



I mean, as long as games can run 720 30fps on switch I don’t see a reason for devs to not port it over, eapecially since nowadays game logoc doesn’t take up much processing power, graphics do, unless its something like civ or stellaris