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

Forums - Sales Discussion - FF7 Rebirth has reportedly sold half what Remake did in the same timeframe

haxxiy said:
Xxain said:

Persona and Yakuza are waaaaaaay more popular than they were 10+ years ago. I would definitely say that Persona is more popular than Final Fantasy with the younger generation. Why are we just putting Final Fantasy up against JRPG's? NO! Rebirth is competing with any other AAA game period. A perfect example is Dragon's Dogma, who definitely ate a piece of the pie. Hell, it had the bigger piece.

I'm not sure about the West, but Yakuza has shrunk in the past 10 years in Japan just like FF did. I doubt the Persona user base is exactly young either since it derives a lot of its appeal from high-school nostalgia and these games have never shied away from a Mature rating.

I agree that FF competes with games in general for attention and that's why sales declined when their quality declined. Let's not just pretend that JRPGs are exactly a popular genre, it has always had limited reach and appeal except for the PS1/PS2 FFs and FF still towers over these other franchises even in decline.

globally all of these franchises are bigger now than they were in past accept maybe Star Ocean. I think it's a small contributing factor, there is more JRPG competition. And if we acknowledge that FF has moved in an action RPG arena then the competition is even more stark. 


Last edited by Otter - on 18 April 2024

Around the Network

These sales numbers are impressive nonethless. If I had the money I would have buyed all the FF games on Steam but they always are so expensive and never on sale!!!!



BiON!@ 

Kyuu said:

There isn't much Square can do other than being consistent with their quality and releasing their games on multiple platforms whenever possible. Rebirth's gameplay is great and combat system the best in the series (general consensus) and may well be my favorite in any RPG or action game ever. The controversy is mainly the plot and segmentation.

Timed exclusivity on popular platforms isn't bad for companies and has nothing to do with Rebirth underperforming in the long run. Most potential buyers will either buy it on PS5 or wait to get it on their preferred platforms, leaving an insignificant minority to skip it out of spite or because "it's an old game bruh", a minority so small, they could be cancelled out by double dipping on Switch 2 for portability or PC for higher fidelity/custom experience. Not to mention the money SE gets from Sony and Epic Games.

I also think some people are massively overrstimating how much Rebirth cost to make. Game only took 3 years to develop, and the sequel could take less. That's 3 years from a company that isn't exactly known as efficient.

Yup.

We have some people throwing out 150 mill or some crazy number like that. Please. I am pretty sure most of Rebirth is reused assets from Remake and Kingdom Hearts 3 (I'm pretty sure Junon overhauled a lot of KH3 assets). 



Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

It could be argued that by trying to appeal to the nostalgia of older players who grew up with FF7 in the 90s, as well as bringing in younger players by extensively modifying the experience, Square may have ended up in the awkward position of not really appealing to either.

Many older fans seem to be put off by the major changes made to the gameplay and story, while younger players may be disinterested simply because they didn't grow up with the original as see it as a throwback to before their time that they have no attachment to.

7 was one of my all time favorite games.  I've beaten it at least 10 times.  I plan on playing rebirth on PC for $30, just to see it.  I'm massively put off by the changes.  I wanted a remake akin to RE4 or Dead Space.  But hey, square wanted to expand it will silly stuff.  

What changes? Story? In the bigger picture there are not really changes to story. Just expansions. RE4 was remake akin to Final Fantasy 7's remake. So you want Final Fantasy 7 to keep doing its thing then? 



Xxain said:
Chrkeller said:

7 was one of my all time favorite games.  I've beaten it at least 10 times.  I plan on playing rebirth on PC for $30, just to see it.  I'm massively put off by the changes.  I wanted a remake akin to RE4 or Dead Space.  But hey, square wanted to expand it will silly stuff.  

What changes? Story? In the bigger picture there are not really changes to story. Just expansions. RE4 was remake akin to Final Fantasy 7's remake. So you want Final Fantasy 7 to keep doing its thing then? 

Lol, really?  I would call adding in the fates a massive change.  Taking 5 hours Midgar and making it 20 hours is massive.  Completely changing the battle system is massive.  

RE4 remake has a few level tweaks and updates but is 95% just a prettier version.  

RE4 also didn't go from 1 game to 3 episodes.  No way RE4 remake is remotely akin to FF7 Remake.  

Edit 

Hell there is a character whom was dead and not part of the original....  no idea why you think there hasn't been massive changes.  

Last edited by Chrkeller - on 18 April 2024

i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Around the Network
Chrkeller said:
curl-6 said:

Square Enix don't seem able to catch a break these days, it feels like most of their big games in the last few years have underperformed.
Between soaring production costs and people having less disposable income for relative luxuries like gaming, it's getting harder and harder for AAA games to succeed; as the pond shrinks the remaining big fish are forced together to fight over what remains, and Square just don't seem able to compete effectively.

Square also ignores platforms not Sony.  FF16 still isn't on PC.  And the thing is I won't pay full price for FF16 when it hits PC.  Given the age of the game I won't pay more than $30.  Square is making some poor decisions.  Square could also cut out all the stupid mini games side quest filler BS to get games out faster and cheaper.  Square is making poor decisions.

Yeah staying platform exclusive in a time where not even Sony first party games still are feels like an anachronistic move.

The irony is, Square's actually pretty good with bringing their smaller stuff to a wider audience; they've arguably given the Switch better support than any other big publisher with stuff like Octopath Traveller 1/2, Triangle Strategy, Harvestella, Dragon Quest 11, Diofield Chronicle, Nier Automata, etc, but when it comes to their heavy hitters they're still doing exclusivity deals like it's 2004.

Speaking of anachronisms, I wonder if like this whole FF7 thing would've faired better if it had happened 10-15 years ago on PS3/360 or PS4/XBO; FF7 nostalgia doesn't seem as strong now as it was back then, now that most gamers under 30 never played it and many that did have moved on or aged out.



curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Square also ignores platforms not Sony.  FF16 still isn't on PC.  And the thing is I won't pay full price for FF16 when it hits PC.  Given the age of the game I won't pay more than $30.  Square is making some poor decisions.  Square could also cut out all the stupid mini games side quest filler BS to get games out faster and cheaper.  Square is making poor decisions.

Yeah staying platform exclusive in a time where not even Sony first party games still are feels like an anachronistic move.

The irony is, Square's actually pretty good with bringing their smaller stuff to a wider audience; they've arguably given the Switch better support than any other big publisher with stuff like Octopath Traveller 1/2, Triangle Strategy, Harvestella, Dragon Quest 11, Diofield Chronicle, Nier Automata, etc, but when it comes to their heavy hitters they're still doing exclusivity deals like it's 2004.

Speaking of anachronisms, I wonder if like this whole FF7 thing would've faired better if it had happened 10-15 years ago on PS3/360 or PS4/XBO; FF7 nostalgia doesn't seem as strong now as it was back then, now that most gamers under 30 never played it and many that did have moved on or aged out.

There are a lot of bad decisions with the remake.  Just my opinion but splitting into episodes was the largest.  Don't get me wrong as individual games they are good...  but remake was 2020, Rebirth is 2024...  the third I assume will be 2028.  It is hard to keep people interested in something for 8 years.  I think interest is naturally going to fade as years go by.

Basically, should have narrowed scope and size for a two game release.  



i7-13700k

Vengeance 32 gb

RTX 4090 Ventus 3x E OC

Switch OLED

Otter said:
haxxiy said:

globally all of these franchises are bigger now than they were in past accept maybe Star Ocean. I think it's a small contributing factor, there is more JRPG competition. And if we acknowledge that FF has moved in an action RPG arena then the competition is even more stark.

Sure, but that's true for most surviving game franchises from the 90s. The market has grown since (and sales have concentrated in known IPs), even for a niche genre like JRPGs... only FF did not. That suggests it's more a matter of quality rather than competition though admittedly it's a bit of splitting hairs at this point since the result is the same.



 

 

 

 

 

curl-6 said:
Chrkeller said:

Square also ignores platforms not Sony.  FF16 still isn't on PC.  And the thing is I won't pay full price for FF16 when it hits PC.  Given the age of the game I won't pay more than $30.  Square is making some poor decisions.  Square could also cut out all the stupid mini games side quest filler BS to get games out faster and cheaper.  Square is making poor decisions.

Yeah staying platform exclusive in a time where not even Sony first party games still are feels like an anachronistic move.

The irony is, Square's actually pretty good with bringing their smaller stuff to a wider audience; they've arguably given the Switch better support than any other big publisher with stuff like Octopath Traveller 1/2, Triangle Strategy, Harvestella, Dragon Quest 11, Diofield Chronicle, Nier Automata, etc, but when it comes to their heavy hitters they're still doing exclusivity deals like it's 2004.

Speaking of anachronisms, I wonder if like this whole FF7 thing would've faired better if it had happened 10-15 years ago on PS3/360 or PS4/XBO; FF7 nostalgia doesn't seem as strong now as it was back then, now that most gamers under 30 never played it and many that did have moved on or aged out.

I think Square missed a really good opportunity to get an original Final Fantasy on Switch. It didn’t necessarily have to be a graphical marvel, but something close to XIII’s graphics would’ve been fine. Think of Final Fantasy’s answer to MHRise. It could’ve been turn based or action turn based like Xenoblade Chronicles. Switch has a user base of over 100 million and has an impressive catalogue of first and third party JRPGs, both old and new.

But alas, if Square still finds being exclusive to Sony with their current FF content would be more beneficial than expanding their audience/platforms, more power to them. At this time, it does not seem like the franchise is finding growth. It’s not dying, but it’s not finding that momentum that it once had from VI-XII. Zelda, considered a long time contemporary to FF, managed to expend its audience even as an exclusive to Nintendo’s platforms. As great as the recent games have been, FF just hasn’t been able to have that breakthrough sales performance this Gen.



Probably due to the fact that not a lot of people liked the first one or didnt play it yet.