Square-Enix "We are the reason why consoles is succesful or not"

[l337raceryo]

Wow I'm really surprised how snobbish Square-Enix is starting to be. Hopefully this is just bit of mistranslation, but seriously

Square Enix senior VP Michihiro Sasaki told the Wall Street Journal today that his company is certainly going to support the PS3, but it isn’t going to overdo it. "We don't want the PlayStation 3 to be the overwhelming loser, so we want to support them," he said. "But we don't want them to be the overwhelming winner either, so we can't support them too much."

Full article here (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3875&Itemid=2)

I can understand them saying that if they was still making games like Chrono Trigger and FFVI. Hell Kindgdom Heart 1 was a amazing, recent, game that SE did. But its sequel (and just about every game SE puts out) is nonthing more but 60 hours of cutscenes pasted together with 5 minutes segments of gameplay.

And them coming off like they're the sole reason why the PS2 sold so well? Honestly I admite that in Japan Final Fantasy and DQ sold PS2 by the bundles, but it's not the sole reason of the PS2 success, IMO. Honestly the PS2 just have a amazing libary of game that haves alot of options for every gamer. You want a sport game? PS2 haves it. You want shooter? PS2 haves it. You want RPGs? PS2 haves it, ect.

[SquidDNA]

Square-enix really used that shitty grammar?

[Sandanjuu]

Well, SE does have a huge fanbase.

Doesn't mean I agree with their mentality.

[HunterX]

Wow I'm really surprised how snobbish Square-Enix is starting to be.

Starting to be? Someone seems to be forgetting the "We WTFpwnbbqed j00 all!!!1111" comments after FFVII sold 1 Mil. copies in the first week of US sales, 700,000 on the first day alone.

[OjKa]

eh...i rate Konami / Namco better than them

[Flawless]

Wow thats incredibly stuck up.

[Starblade]

I've never cared too much for Square-Enix games.

[A176]

Sasaki’s comments (which were pulled out of context and dropped into the WSJ article) don’t exactly take the humble approach regarding Square Enix’s heavy influence on the popularity of the PlayStation brand.

There's nothing snobbish at all about this situation. They know their titles move, and that their name carries weight. Its nothing to be ashamed about at all. They know that where ever Final Fantasy goes, millions and millions of people are sure to follow.

On the MS side, just take a look at the Halo hype machine. Halo 2, as a single player game, was drastically different than the first - it didn't even have a complete ending, but the title still sells like hotfire. People buy a 360 with the thought that Halo 3 is going be released on the platform.

I would blame the developers for sticking to a single platform, which in turn causes situations like these, but then theres so much I don't know about that goes on behind the scenes with publishers and whatnot.

[Eboli]

Nobody doubts that they move systems, it's a fact. But it's pure hubris so say stuff that amounts to "We make or Break systems". It's like the Beatles saying they're "bigger than Jesus".

Bungie moves systems but they don't claim to be the decider of which system is successful or not. Show a little humility is all. Nobody likes a braggart.

[Dante]

No Masterchief moves the Xbox...who cares about Bungie?

Whereas Square-Enix has a fanbase that knows the company the its legacy of games. Sure they're crazy...but at least they have some backing for it! :p

[Verrin]

Yeah, excessive pride is not an image they want to start painting on their company.

[HunterX]

Please don't use Bungie as an exapmle as a compnay that moved the Xbox. MS owns Bungie. MS is moving their own system.

[Noir]

Lol Weeaboos.

[Eboli]

Please don't use Bungie as an exapmle as a compnay that moved the Xbox. MS owns Bungie. MS is moving their own system.
Okay fine. Microsoft moves systems but they don't brag about it. Nintendo has sold more software than Square Enix could ever dream of and they don't brag. What does it really matter who's moving a system? I'm not sure what your point is.

[Afoxi]

Arrogant bastards.

[ZellFish]

I agree with Afoxi. I mean seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to consider your company the sole reason for console success.

[HunterX]

Bungie moves systems...

That's what I was commenting on Eboli. It makes no sense to say Bungie is moving the Xbox when their parent company MS, and more specifically MS Game Studios, is telling them what to do. MS is producing their own game under the Bungie lable and are thus moving their own system with their own game. The Big N does the same thing with Mario and Zelda. They are First/Second party titles. It's not the same situation with Sqaure which is a third party developer and an equal comparison can't be made to a first/second party developer moving systems compared to a third party developer. A first/second party developer is moving one system. A company like Square (i.e. a popular third party developer) has the potential to make or break a system because they can choose to switch platforms. That's where the unequal comparison comes in.

That's not to say that I don't think Square are a bunch of arrogant bastards. I do. They have been for years.

[CrimsonAngel]

yeah they are arrogant, but what you gone do boycut them.....

HELL NO!!!! i need my FIX

[Eboli]

HunterX - I think the disconnect is you saw systems and thought I was talking about Xbox, Gamecube and PS2. When I said they move systems I meant it in the plural way as in they move Xbox systems. In that way it doesn't really matter if they're owned by MS or not.

[Noir]

I agree with Afoxi. I mean seriously, how arrogant do you have to be to consider your company the sole reason for console success.

Legions of Waps.

[{DEATH}Abyss]

Technically game shift consoles so they do have a point but this is their excuse saying that they are going multiformart with more of their games. But their is more games then devil may cry and FF out there. Metal Gear 4 and unreal will shift more and warhawk as well.

[Eboli]

Well that's what I'm saying DA. Games do sell consoles. And SE definitely sells a lot of games and do sell consoles. But their software sales don't come close to some of the bigger players (Nintendo), EA come to mind). Certainly they contribute to the success of a system but do they make it or break it?

Revenues
Nintendo - $4.5 Billion (incl HW sales)
EA - $3 Billion
SE - $600 Million

Even EA doesn't come out and claim they decide which system is successful by how much they support it or not. SE is trying to correlate a system's success to their support of said system, and create causation.

[Lestaki]

I think we're being a bit disproportionate about what Enix is saying here. What's actually being said doesn't seem to be "we make or break consoles", but that "we have a notable effect on whether a console suceeds or fails", which while arrogant is slightly different, and also fairly true. The comment doesn't claim that they're the determining factor, only that they contribute. Of course, you can be more or less charitable about the implication behind their statement, but I don't think it can be read by default as a blanket declaration that they're the sole reason for a console's sucess or failure.

Just my :2cents:.

[Malarky]

we have a notable effect on whether a console suceeds or fails

Well if you imagine him taking a deep breath, crossing his arms and leaning back a little and saying it with a grin...

Still seems arrogant.

hmmm

[Eboli]

Lestaki - Did you read what he actually said? They don't want Sony to be an overwhelming loser so they're going to support them... but just a little.

Sure if they had said what you said it would have been okay. But that's not what they said. What they said implies A LOT.

[Afoxi]

If the translation is wrong, and what Lestaki just mentioned is true, then i may take back what i said in my earlier post. Saying the PS2 is a success because they made tonnes of games on it is getting their heads up in clouds.

If they're saying they have the power to tip the scales to one side's favor, that might be a whole other story, and can be considered true to some extent.

EDIT: Spelling+Grammar, insomniac.

[Lestaki]

They don't want Sony to be the overwhelming loser so they support them a little, but not a lot... so that they make their best guess contribution to the console without supporting it 100%. If they want it to mostly suceed, then they say they'll mostly support it, as do other companies like them, in theory. What they say doesn't, to me anyway, instantly imply a presumtion that they're the only factor.

Put it this way: you're a games company amongst others who wants a console to suceed, but not too badly. Is it that illogical to say that you'll provide some but not total support? That's all any one company can do to try and ensure some but not complete sucess after all, whoever you are...

[Eboli]

I know that's all what one company can do. But that's not what one company can "think" they can do. They can certainly think they can do that, and they can certainly say that as well, which is what it could easily be taken as Sony saying.


"We don't want the PlayStation 3 to be the overwhelming loser, so we want to support them," he said. "But we don't want them to be the overwhelming winner either, so we can't support them too much."

What does that say to you? It says to me that they think if they don't support a system it will be an "overwhelming loser". It says that if they support them "too much" they'll be an "overwhelming winner".

They're not saying a failure, they're qualifying it with the word overwhelming. You know BIG, MASSIVE!. It's quite clear to me what they're saying, we support a system it succeeds, we support a system a lot and it is overwhelming winner, if we support it a little it will be an overwhelming loser."

For the record I love Final Fantasy games, and I love Square Games, but I hate arrogance on this level.

[Dukesarge]

Well when you think about it if Square-Enix were to support the PS3 with 100% of their power, then they would have to come right out and say that they will not publish any games on another system. Else it wouldn’t be 100%. Since that would be an ridiculously idiotic thing to do, they have basically just said ...

"We know the PS3 has had encountered what could become some potential problems during its production, but we still feel that there is a large profitable potential there. So we are planning to still give Sony our support (And incidentally help them overcome said potential problems). However we are in no way going to support the PS3 to the exclusion of all other systems."

[Eboli]

That's what they should have said or even "Yeah we sell games, and people buy systems to play our games." They should not have tried to tie the success of a system to their software sales and the level of support they give a system. Even if they were in fact the only reason a system is successful (which they are not) they shouldn't brag about it

[Lestaki]

What does that say to you? It says to me that they think if they don't support a system it will be an "overwhelming loser". It says that if they support them "too much" they'll be an "overwhelming winner".

It says to me that if they don't support a system then they won't contribute to it, and so it is more likely to fail. They didn't say "we won't support the 360, so watch it crash and burn". They're just acknowledging what the rest of the gaming world has already- that the PS3 isn't looking too good for storming the market right now. The second part is harder to argue with. Yeah, there's just a bit of hubris there, I'll admit that. ;)

["moo"]

That's pretty arrogant of them. At this point they can hardly say that as so many of their more recent games have been.....well....less than first rate to put it mildly.