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

Forums - Nintendo - Square-Enix using Nintendo to pay for Final Fantasy 13 etc?

shanbcn on 13 July 2008
Kasz216 said:
shanbcn said:
Kasz216 said:
shanbcn said:
I don't understand why people especially some MODs ( atleast you expect same honesty from them) keep saying MGS4 budget was $75 million without any proof? And even 3 million copies sold in first 2 weeks ( now the figure will be much higher after month) is not good enough? I know when you play MGS4 it seem like most expensive game ever made because of great production values but still i don't think it costed $75 million.

I'd guess he based it off the fact that the assitant producer said it needed to sell at least a million copies first day for it to have the kind of curve it would need to meet production costs because of how high the costs have soared.

 

So it needed to sell 1 million day one to make a profit? And guess what it already sold 3 million in 2 weeks and over million day one.

 

Sell 1 Million in day one to have the right curve. Not to make a profit. It needed to sell 1 million day one to have the right curve to make money. It's a big difference from 1 million = making money... and 1 million first day means = it probably will make enough money.

 

 

Any link to backup what you just said? Because they needed to sell one million to break even and after that profit. And remember the amazing engine they created will be used in future games as well.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164636

 



Around the Network
shanbcn on 13 July 2008
Leetgeek said:
shanbcn said:
I don't understand why people especially some MODs ( atleast you expect same honesty from them) keep saying MGS4 budget was $75 million without any proof? And even 3 million copies sold in first 2 weeks ( now the figure will be much higher after month) is not good enough? I know when you play MGS4 it seem like most expensive game ever made because of great production values but still i don't think it costed $75 million.

Agreed.

Lol at these nuts who talk trash about MGS4 sales (3mill plussssss)considering it came out in june on only one console. Who wants to bet that MGS4 won't hit 5-6 million copies sold by Jan 09?

 

Secondly I never said that FF4 was shovelware though in all honesty a game that good does deserve a nice high budget remake I don't give a damn on which console just not on DS.

Let's pray that FF6 does it's the last real hope.

 

I love DS a lot but some games just deserve the highest quality remake possible.

 

I don't blame them, after all i don't think any 3rd party will bother releasing huge exclusive to Wii or 360 let alone one of the most expensives games of the generation FFXIII and MGS4.



Darc Requiem on 13 July 2008
Kasz216 said:
Darc Requiem said:
Hmm, I didn't realize so many people actually liked FFTA. The game wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything close to FFT. I played FFT for years. I completed it several times. FFTA was easy, the judge system is there to artificially increase difficultly, and the story was horrid. I finished it once and never touched it again. Once I found out the Judge system was back in FFTA2, I immediately scratched it off my purchase list.


I don't know.  It seemed a lot harder then FFT... espiecally after you got TG Cid.  There is only one battle in all of FFT you really need any strategy for... the first 1 on 1 battle.

I don't get what makes the judge system "artifical" just because it's different.

As for the story.  Like i said.  I disagree.  It's story even had a radio drama after it.

The judge system attempted to mask the lack of difficulty of the game. The enemies easy and dumb as molasses. The game was more about circumventing the rules of the judge system than strategically placing your units. Even with the judge system the game as still easy. I could have let all that slide if it wasn't for the less than serious setting and poor story.

 



Kasz216 on 13 July 2008
shanbcn said:
Kasz216 said:
shanbcn said:
Kasz216 said:
shanbcn said:
I don't understand why people especially some MODs ( atleast you expect same honesty from them) keep saying MGS4 budget was $75 million without any proof? And even 3 million copies sold in first 2 weeks ( now the figure will be much higher after month) is not good enough? I know when you play MGS4 it seem like most expensive game ever made because of great production values but still i don't think it costed $75 million.

I'd guess he based it off the fact that the assitant producer said it needed to sell at least a million copies first day for it to have the kind of curve it would need to meet production costs because of how high the costs have soared.

 

So it needed to sell 1 million day one to make a profit? And guess what it already sold 3 million in 2 weeks and over million day one.

 

Sell 1 Million in day one to have the right curve. Not to make a profit. It needed to sell 1 million day one to have the right curve to make money. It's a big difference from 1 million = making money... and 1 million first day means = it probably will make enough money.

 

 

Any link to backup what you just said? Because they needed to sell one million to break even and after that profit. And remember the amazing engine they created will be used in future games as well.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164636

 

Look at the actual article and then think about it for a second. If it HAS to sell over 1 million on opening day to make money what does that tell you?

What he actually told rueters was Metal gear solid needs to sell over 1 million on day 1 due to the costly production costs... nothing about breaking even. It needs to start at over 1 million due to the production costs... because either...

That either

A) He's talking about the curve... and 1 million would be the expected baseling start to breaking even.

or

B) He expects zero sales beyond day 1. Since otherwise if 1 million was break even, with less then day 1 million could still reach a million later on.

So... he's either talking about the curve or he's an idiot.

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSLAU93973120071129



Kasz216 on 13 July 2008
Darc Requiem said:
Kasz216 said:
Darc Requiem said:
Hmm, I didn't realize so many people actually liked FFTA. The game wasn't bad, but it wasn't anything close to FFT. I played FFT for years. I completed it several times. FFTA was easy, the judge system is there to artificially increase difficultly, and the story was horrid. I finished it once and never touched it again. Once I found out the Judge system was back in FFTA2, I immediately scratched it off my purchase list.


I don't know. It seemed a lot harder then FFT... espiecally after you got TG Cid. There is only one battle in all of FFT you really need any strategy for... the first 1 on 1 battle.

I don't get what makes the judge system "artifical" just because it's different.

As for the story. Like i said. I disagree. It's story even had a radio drama after it.

The judge system attempted to mask the lack of difficulty of the game. The enemies easy and dumb as molasses. The game was more about circumventing the rules of the judge system than strategically placing your units. Even with the judge system the game as still easy. I could have let all that slide if it wasn't for the less than serious setting and poor story.

 

Which still gives it a level above FFT strategy.

As for the story, like I said, all i can do is disagree.  The fact that it became a Radio Drama would seem to indicate the story wasn't bad.  Since it's not like the game sold that amazing.

 



Around the Network
trestres on 14 July 2008

Looks like SE is using Sony to pay for MS FFXIII, doesn't it Leetgeek?



Proud poster of the 10000th reply at the Official Smash Bros Update Thread.

tag - "I wouldn't trust gamespot, even if it was a live comparison."

Bets with Conegamer:

Pandora's Tower will have an opening week of less than 37k in Japan. (Won!)
Pandora's Tower will sell less than 100k lifetime in Japan.
Stakes: 1 week of avatar control for each one.

Fullfilled Prophecies

brute on 14 July 2008

well it seems this didnt happen



tag:"reviews only matter for the real hardcore gamer"

arsenal009 on 14 July 2008

I think they had enough money to pay for this game even before the wii came out. But now that it's on both HD consoles, it will definitely be profitable.



Leetgeek on 14 July 2008
trestres said:
Looks like SE is using Sony to pay for MS FFXIII, doesn't it Leetgeek?

 

Hey! You think Nintendo will announce a Wii version?

 

*snicker



sc94597 on 14 July 2008
shanbcn said:
Leetgeek said:
shanbcn said:
I don't understand why people especially some MODs ( atleast you expect same honesty from them) keep saying MGS4 budget was $75 million without any proof? And even 3 million copies sold in first 2 weeks ( now the figure will be much higher after month) is not good enough? I know when you play MGS4 it seem like most expensive game ever made because of great production values but still i don't think it costed $75 million.

Agreed.

Lol at these nuts who talk trash about MGS4 sales (3mill plussssss)considering it came out in june on only one console. Who wants to bet that MGS4 won't hit 5-6 million copies sold by Jan 09?

 

Secondly I never said that FF4 was shovelware though in all honesty a game that good does deserve a nice high budget remake I don't give a damn on which console just not on DS.

Let's pray that FF6 does it's the last real hope.

 

I love DS a lot but some games just deserve the highest quality remake possible.

 

I don't blame them, after all i don't think any 3rd party will bother releasing huge exclusive to Wii or 360 let alone one of the most expensives games of the generation FFXIII and MGS4.

Looks like you were a bit arrogant there.