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

Forums - Sony - Square Enix: "Maybe news on a Final Fantasy 7 remake soon"...

kiefer23 on 26 August 2009
Carl2291 said:
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
You should all know that PC means nothing

And you should know Banjo-Kazooie is on XBLA.

The illusion of brand loyalty means less than nothing.

I know... i have it myself.

But, if there is no Sony deal... why isn't FF7 on Live?

Like I mentioned before, Square-Enix most probably had no plans on bringing FF7 to the PSN. Sony more than likely approached them asking for a PSN version of FF7 to make their weak (Compared to XBL) downloadable game line up appear much better with Final Fantasy VII on the list.

Microsoft have not asked for it.

Also having a PSN FF7 gave Sony something to brag about at E3.

Sure, Sony didn't want it on PSN to add to the PSone Classics part of PSN... it was just to compete with Live.

Any links to say that MS aint asked for it?

@Khuutra, some downloads are way bigger than that.


What is the Psone classics section of the PSN? Downloadable games... They rival XBLA games alongside Sony's other downloadable titles like Pain and Super Stardust HD.

In the UK they have really shit PSone classics up except FF7. I haven't checked recently to see if Sony have put any other decent PSone classics. Calling Medi Evil and Destruction Debry classics is laughable.

Everything on the PSN is there to compete with XBL.

Believe me if Microsoft asked for it and Square-Enix refused it would be leaked onto the web and all the Playstation Fanboys would be running in circles rubbing it into every Xbox owners faces. And if Microsoft asked or offered money I'm positive they would get it even if it was the PC version.

Red- So they didn't do it to give the service a boost... or to earn some money?

Green- I agree that we get a shit service. Just because you dont count Medi-Evil or DD as classics, dont mean they aren't "classics".

Blue- I wont belive you. Why would SE leak the fail when they have had a good business with MS this gen?

 

Of course it would give the service a boost and net them some money. What I'm saying is Sony probably approached them about the idea to better their service.

There are plenty of better "classics" they could have used. The Japanese marketplace is where it's at. Do we even have SOTN over here yet?

I'm not saying it's true but it would probably happen. And don't forget it only takes 1 worker from either of them to leak it onto the web. The leakers might not respect the company they work for or the other one they are dealing with. There are always workers that will go behind their companies backs. Besides whenever Microsoft throws cash for something it always gets made public knowledge eventually.



Around the Network
Carl on 26 August 2009
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

 

The Xbox Originals line was separate from XBLA, and has to be considered separate in that sense.

Watchmen came in at 1.2GB, almost as big as FF7, but it had the advantage of tying in to a very popular cinematic property at the time of release and not being a re-release of a twelve-year-old game.

Its the same thing, Originals and Arcade are still both downloadable games.

Like i said, there is no reason why FF7 wouldn't fit onto the marketplace.

There is a difference, if only in presentation and allowance of size.

Final Fantasy 7, as an unenhanced port of a game that was not the belle of the ball over a decade ago, is not going to be given the same leeway as an enormous, completely original tie-in to a currently popular intellectual property.

That, of course, is assuming Square even assumes that there would be a large enough financial return on the deal, which they very well may not.

If its not worth putting the original on the 360, then what would be the point of putting the remake on the 360?

Saying it wouldnt bring a large financial return is IMO, daft. 360 owners love the Live content, and not to forget, the JRPG fanbase has been drawn to the 360 now with all the recent games and with the inclusion of FF13 360... it makes it a dead cert that it would sell just as well, if not more than the PSN version. (In the west)



                            

Khuutra on 26 August 2009
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

There is a difference, if only in presentation and allowance of size.

Final Fantasy 7, as an unenhanced port of a game that was not the belle of the ball over a decade ago, is not going to be given the same leeway as an enormous, completely original tie-in to a currently popular intellectual property.

That, of course, is assuming Square even assumes that there would be a large enough financial return on the deal, which they very well may not.

If its not worth putting the original on the 360, then what would be the point of putting the remake on the 360?

Saying it wouldnt bring a large financial return is IMO, daft. 360 owners love the Live content, and not to forget, the JRPG fanbase has been drawn to the 360 now with all the recent games and with the inclusion of FF13 360... it makes it a dead cert that it would sell just as well, if not more than the PSN version. (In the west)

That's bizarre logic. The remake would be worth putting on the 360 (and PS3 - if it goes HD I assume it would go multiplat) because it would sell more copies there, at full price, with a very high profit margin over the measured amount of time. The problem with the port is that the profit they draw in over time may not be high enough to justify the time and expense of porting it, however small that may be.

And frankly, your opinion here means absolutely nothing. It's not up to you, or to me, it's up to corporate heads, and that's very well a possible decision they may make.



Carl on 26 August 2009
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:

Sure, Sony didn't want it on PSN to add to the PSone Classics part of PSN... it was just to compete with Live.

Any links to say that MS aint asked for it?

@Khuutra, some downloads are way bigger than that.


What is the Psone classics section of the PSN? Downloadable games... They rival XBLA games alongside Sony's other downloadable titles like Pain and Super Stardust HD.

In the UK they have really shit PSone classics up except FF7. I haven't checked recently to see if Sony have put any other decent PSone classics. Calling Medi Evil and Destruction Debry classics is laughable.

Everything on the PSN is there to compete with XBL.

Believe me if Microsoft asked for it and Square-Enix refused it would be leaked onto the web and all the Playstation Fanboys would be running in circles rubbing it into every Xbox owners faces. And if Microsoft asked or offered money I'm positive they would get it even if it was the PC version.

Red- So they didn't do it to give the service a boost... or to earn some money?

Green- I agree that we get a shit service. Just because you dont count Medi-Evil or DD as classics, dont mean they aren't "classics".

Blue- I wont belive you. Why would SE leak the fail when they have had a good business with MS this gen?

 

Of course it would give the service a boost and net them some money. What I'm saying is Sony probably approached them about the idea to better their service.

There are plenty of better "classics" they could have used. The Japanese marketplace is where it's at. Do we even have SOTN over here yet?

I'm not saying it's true but it would probably happen. And don't forget it only takes 1 worker from either of them to leak it onto the web. The leakers might not respect the company they work for or the other one they are dealing with. There are always workers that will go behind their companies backs. Besides whenever Microsoft throws cash for something it always gets made public knowledge eventually.

How do we know Sony approached them? And not the other way around? We dont. And likely, we never will.

I agree, there are LOTS of better games they could have chosen, but one mans garbage is another mans gold. SotN, im not sure... not checked the Classics in a while.

Im going to have to stop talking with both of you now for a while... i need to do some news articles.



                            

kiefer23 on 26 August 2009
Xoj said:
kiefer23 said:
Xoj said:
kiefer23 said:
Munkeh111 said:
What's to stop it going on Live? Well they would have to port it, so it is not free money in the same way


What and 0 XBL users are going to purchase it? They have a buyer right here that would definetly pick it up "again" on XBLA.

It really couldn't cost much for them to port over a 5th generation game to the Xbox 360. Heck they could port the PC version with better audio. That would be even easier. It would cost even less then the DS remakes.

Final Fantasy VII is a goldmine. Where ever Square take it they will make profit.

actually the PC version was worse.. i had it.

it have some bugs that make the game unplayable, it could screw up your save also. controls were annoying , and the video were mere converstions.

text was easier to read though.

you know goldeneye was also by rare and it's on the XBLA mainly because nintendo was the publisher are they are not giving in golden eye so easy.

if a ff7 pc exist and sony  and squaresoft have to give a green light to go.

Ports

The President of Nintendo of America, Reggie Fils-Aime, announced that Nintendo is exploring the possibility of adding GoldenEye 007 to the Wii Virtual Console, despite a complicated situation in which the game's developer Rare is owned by Microsoft (producers of the rival Xbox 360 console) and the video game rights to the James Bond franchise are held by Activision. He stated, "We would love to see it [on the Virtual Console], so we're exploring all the rights issues."[46]

On January 7, 2008, Xbox Evolved confirmed the existence of GoldenEye 007 on Xbox Live Arcade.[47] On January 11, 2008, 1UP.com reported that a GoldenEye port (as opposed to a remake) had been in development at Rare for several months, but stated that the title would not be released on the Xbox Live Arcade since "Microsoft and Nintendo couldn't agree on the financial side of things."[48]

They are easy to fix bugs. And Golden Eye won't be coming to Live or the VC simply because Activision now own the license to the James Bond Franchise. They won't allow it unless they get something in return and Microsoft owning the developer of Golden Eye doesn't improve Nintendo's chances either.

Like many of us have mentioned Sony own's no License with the Final Fantasy franchise. Square-Enix decide where it goes. Sony gets
no green light to fiddle with.

of course they do, nintendo doesn't own they still get a talk in financial things.?

nintendo was the publisher only, same for sony and ff7.

square enix gets activision sit in this fight.

The Golden Eye example you are using is useless. The problems residing a Golden Eye port are nothing like the problems residing a Final Fantasy VII port. Infact there is no problem with a FF7 port.

If Square-Enix wanted to release FF7 on XBLA they could and Sony would get no say in the matter. Unless of course Sony has paid Square-Enix for exclusive rights for the arcade version which I doubt.

Just because you publish a game it doesn't automaticly mean the publisher gets the rights to the game. You can do it that way like Microsoft and Halo or you can work out a deal where the developer keeps the rights to the game like Rare -Perfect Dark/ Banjo Kazooie and Square-Enix - Final Fantasy. The publisher would probably want a higher percentage of the profits if they were not receiving control of the IP though.

Go read the previous page of this topic.



Around the Network
Carl on 26 August 2009
Khuutra said:
Carl2291 said:
Khuutra said:

There is a difference, if only in presentation and allowance of size.

Final Fantasy 7, as an unenhanced port of a game that was not the belle of the ball over a decade ago, is not going to be given the same leeway as an enormous, completely original tie-in to a currently popular intellectual property.

That, of course, is assuming Square even assumes that there would be a large enough financial return on the deal, which they very well may not.

If its not worth putting the original on the 360, then what would be the point of putting the remake on the 360?

Saying it wouldnt bring a large financial return is IMO, daft. 360 owners love the Live content, and not to forget, the JRPG fanbase has been drawn to the 360 now with all the recent games and with the inclusion of FF13 360... it makes it a dead cert that it would sell just as well, if not more than the PSN version. (In the west)

That's bizarre logic. The remake would be worth putting on the 360 (and PS3 - if it goes HD I assume it would go multiplat) because it would sell more copies there, at full price, with a very high profit margin over the measured amount of time. The problem with the port is that the profit they draw in over time may not be high enough to justify the time and expense of porting it, however small that may be.

And frankly, your opinion here means absolutely nothing. It's not up to you, or to me, it's up to corporate heads, and that's very well a possible decision they may make.

I see what you mean, and i admit it was bizare logic. But if you dont have faith in the current audience to buy your game, why would you have faith in them for a remake?

As for the opinion, i know it doesnt mean a thing. Although i notice you didn't argue against anything i actually said in that opinion. Anyway, it was just common sense

Thats it, i HAVE to go do news now. I might return later. xxx



                            

AdventWolf on 26 August 2009
Munkeh111 said:
@ finalrpgfantasy, I agree I would be really annoyed if it was on PSP, FF VII from the PSN is good enough on the PSP

A remake on the PSP couldn't do it justice, if they totally revamp the game the way it should be, it would need to be more than 2 GB of space!



kiefer23 on 26 August 2009
Carl2291 said:
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:
kiefer23 said:
Carl2291 said:

Sure, Sony didn't want it on PSN to add to the PSone Classics part of PSN... it was just to compete with Live.

Any links to say that MS aint asked for it?

@Khuutra, some downloads are way bigger than that.


What is the Psone classics section of the PSN? Downloadable games... They rival XBLA games alongside Sony's other downloadable titles like Pain and Super Stardust HD.

In the UK they have really shit PSone classics up except FF7. I haven't checked recently to see if Sony have put any other decent PSone classics. Calling Medi Evil and Destruction Debry classics is laughable.

Everything on the PSN is there to compete with XBL.

Believe me if Microsoft asked for it and Square-Enix refused it would be leaked onto the web and all the Playstation Fanboys would be running in circles rubbing it into every Xbox owners faces. And if Microsoft asked or offered money I'm positive they would get it even if it was the PC version.

Red- So they didn't do it to give the service a boost... or to earn some money?

Green- I agree that we get a shit service. Just because you dont count Medi-Evil or DD as classics, dont mean they aren't "classics".

Blue- I wont belive you. Why would SE leak the fail when they have had a good business with MS this gen?

 

Of course it would give the service a boost and net them some money. What I'm saying is Sony probably approached them about the idea to better their service.

There are plenty of better "classics" they could have used. The Japanese marketplace is where it's at. Do we even have SOTN over here yet?

I'm not saying it's true but it would probably happen. And don't forget it only takes 1 worker from either of them to leak it onto the web. The leakers might not respect the company they work for or the other one they are dealing with. There are always workers that will go behind their companies backs. Besides whenever Microsoft throws cash for something it always gets made public knowledge eventually.

How do we know Sony approached them? And not the other way around? We dont. And likely, we never will.

I agree, there are LOTS of better games they could have chosen, but one mans garbage is another mans gold. SotN, im not sure... not checked the Classics in a while.

Im going to have to stop talking with both of you now for a while... i need to do some news articles.

I am just assuming Square-Enix could have been working on more profitable projects (DS games) instead of donating their time to a PSN version of FF7. They did Sony a favor for the good relationship over the years. The PSN port was more sucessful then they had imagined anyway and sold a ton of copies :)

Yes I'm sure there are a few out there who enjoy them both. I used to play them when I was younger and damn they haven't aged well.

That's fine with me. I am getting tired of rambling on. Good luck.