Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth - Which Potential ?

[BTB123]

The sales numbers used to be much higher, you're saying? Why did they contract?

I didn't say anything like that. Just an example of games that used to reach that milestone every year. ACNH reached 1M for example.

 

[StardustTraveler]

Only FIFA (and 1 Call of Duty game) was hitting the 1 million+ Awards. It wasn't so much contracting but, trying to broaden how many games can receive the award.

I didn't say anything like that. Just an example of games that used to reach that milestone every year. ACNH reached 1M for example.

Oh. I assumed that reducing the thresholds for sales awards was done because game were selling less. My mistake.

 

[Djehuty]

In light of the Dring events in UK thread and what is a general forum stance, let's avoid making a stink of what people say on social media just because they don't spell out everything for you.

plus hes right, 16 and remake were not flops .

Post automatically merged: Apr 17, 2024

I've been wondering if there has been a remake of a game as successful as FF7 that has replicated that success, like FF7, was probably the most successful game of that generation, do you guys have some examples? I have no idea how SE though they could replicate that success, sure the market is much bigger that it was in those days, so maybe that was their idea? I mean who knows how many times more expensive this remake trilogy is going to end up being compared to the original, so I guess they at least wanted at least a similar growth of profit from that exponential growth of investment.

Overall I fail to see, business wise, why this was greenlit at all, but by now we know that this industry, especially in Japan doesn't seem to be entirely driven by business sense so maybe it's not surprising.

leon kennedy, enough said.

 

[Drblitzk]

Thanks everyone, quite a few examples, and most of them did in fact not exceed or even match the sales of the originals, and the reasons for each being suggested or even greenlit (and their budgets) being quite different.

With the first party ones (Nintendo mostly with Zelda, but Sony also with TLOU, Shadow of the Colossus, Demon's Souls) being mostly about padding their schedule between other big releases, and with the Zelda ones with a quite limited budget, meaning that they don't necessarily have to be as successful as the originals to be quite profitable, the Crash situation was mostly about reviving the franchise after a looong hiatus, in the end it failed in reviving it, but by itself did pretty good, but not as good as the originals combined, while RE and Pokémon seems to be the ones that have included remakes as part of their cycle between new entries to keep people engaged with their franchises.

In fact, the REmakes were the ones I had in the back of my head with them feeling quite similar to FF7R in terms of rescoping the original games to be more in line with current era games and they now fill an important part Capcom's schedule giving it chance to alternate between new releases and remakes around every 2 years, the difference being that the every REmake will end up being even more successful than the original FF7 let alone the original RE games (RE2 at least, 3 and 4 may have a chance). that does not seems to be a possible route for SE and FF due to the scope of the games being so different, having to split it in several games with a much much bigger budget than the REmakes and with each of its parts being unable to reach the original heights I feel this is going to be an one and done, and not really a way to maintain a certain cadence of releases like Capcom managed.

 

[Jatinder5ingh]

Crash situation was mostly about reviving the franchise after a looong hiatus, in the end it failed in reviving it, but by itself did pretty good, but not as good as the originals combined.

Crash remakes were successful in reviving the series, we got a Crash 4 because of them. Unfortunately Crash 4 is what didn't do well and killed it again.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

Square-Enix certainly could scope actual remakes into single games. I suspect that a theoretical FF8, FF9, or FF10 remake could be released in a single volume. It's not clear if they're interested in doing that, though

 

[Drblitzk]

Crash remakes were successful in reviving the series, we got a Crash 4 because of them. Unfortunately Crash 4 is what didn't do well and killed it again.

Not really? Yes 4 came out, and according to people it's good, but it seems the reason the trilogy did good was clearly nostalgia and that it was a cheaper game, so not really sparking interest in the series continuing, which I guess, was a big reason for doing a remake.

 

[GoldenFingers]

Square-Enix certainly could scope actual remakes into single games. I suspect that a theoretical FF8, FF9, or FF10 remake could be released in a single volume. It's not clear if they're interested in doing that, though

They just remade 1-6 as single games, and all of the supposed leaks of 9 say that is a single game. Of the 50 remakes they've done only once have they split it into multiple games and there is no reason to think that is somehow a norm now.

FF7 is split across pretty clear lines. 3 games and 3 scales.

 

[StardustTraveler]

Square-Enix certainly could scope actual remakes into single games. I suspect that a theoretical FF8, FF9, or FF10 remake could be released in a single volume. It's not clear if they're interested in doing that, though

I always assumed 7 Remake being split into a trilogy was a one-off thing that could only be justified by FF7's enormous commercial success (both the original and the following compilation of FF7 works). Never thought the other games would get multi-part remakes.

 

[Mekanos]

I'd actually be interested in a potential FF10 remake because I have problems with the Sphere Grid, but idk if they'd make the changes I'd like them to.

 

[Koni]

A friend brought this up, and I dont remember if it was brought up here, but it's something that's easy to overlook in enthusiast circles and forums even though it shouldn't:

But very few gamers actually finish the games they buy. I am 100% guilty of this as of recent years, but yeah.

Here's a scientific report on the matter:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875952118300181

This research analyzed video game completion rates using achievement data from a sample of 725 games on Valve Corporation’s Steam service and found that, for most games, only a minority of players (M = 14%, Mdn = 10%) finish the games they start.

Not only will people fall off between parts, but people will fall off during said parts as well. Plus there's likely a not insignificant amount of people who played the original FF7 and really only experienced Midgar before they stopped playing. Or perhaps they stopped with the end of Disc One. Still.

 

[theprodigy]

A friend brought this up, and I dont remember if it was brought up here, but it's something that's easy to overlook in enthusiast circles and forums even though it shouldn't:

But very few gamers actually finish the games they buy. I am 100% guilty of this as of recent years, but yeah.

Here's a scientific report on the matter:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1875952118300181

Not only will people fall off between parts, but people will fall off during said parts as well. Plus there's likely a not insignificant amount of people who played the original FF7 and really only experienced Midgar before they stopped playing. Or perhaps they stopped with the end of Disc One. Still.

tbf if it's using Steam data it's probably got a lot of games that were sold dirt cheap and people impulse bought and didn't play, I think looking at other JRPGs and/or PS exclusives would give a better idea of completion rates for FF7 (among non-PS+ players)

 

[StardustTraveler]

tbf if it's using Steam data it's probably got a lot of games that were sold dirt cheap and people impulse bought and didn't play, I think looking at other JRPGs and/or PS exclusives would give a better idea of completion rates for FF7 (among non-PS+ players)

Does anyone have the Playstation trophy data for Remake? It's possible to track what percentage of players have completed the game by seeing the achievement statistics, right?

Edit: this article says 53.3% of players on PlayStation finished Remake as of September 2020.

When completing games on the PlayStation 4, players can earn an achievement that shows other players they have finished the story. This trophies also keep track of the percentage of players that obtain the award. According to a recent screenshot, more than half of The Last of Us 2 players completed the game — 58% to be exact.

This percentage is much higher than other popular PS4 games, with the next highest games by completion rate, Final Fantasy 7 Remake and God of War, at 53.3% and 51.8% respectively. While this game has the highest completion rate of all time, this does not necessarily mean that it has the highest number of player completions total. The Naughty Dog title takes around 20 to 40 hours to finish the full story, so fans have devoted a lot of time to this game and seeing the story all the way to the conclusion.

Looking at the steam achievements, we can see that the completion rate on PC is 29.8%.

 

[Belthazar]

Square-Enix certainly could scope actual remakes into single games. I suspect that a theoretical FF8, FF9, or FF10 remake could be released in a single volume. It's not clear if they're interested in doing that, though

FF7 could've easily been a single game scoped around the same breadth of Rebirth, but frankly it would've probably been a lot less cost-effective than splitting it in 3. I mean, putting all of the story in a single game with a world scoped as Rebirth's (only bigger, due to a few regions missing) + Midgar (even if smaller than Remake's) + flying would've definitely have taken close to what the entire trilogy took to make (and would have costs proportional to that). So even if it sold like 10 million copies or something, it was still a better deal to make the 3 games even with the diminishing returns commercially by each installment.

 

[Jimmy Joe]

FF7 could've easily been a single game scoped around the same breadth of Rebirth, but frankly it would've probably been a lot less cost-effective than splitting it in 3. I mean, putting all of the story in a single game with a world scoped as Rebirth's (only bigger, due to a few regions missing) + Midgar (even if smaller than Remake's) + flying would've definitely have taken close to what the entire trilogy took to make (and would have costs proportional to that). So even if it sold like 10 million copies or something, it was still a better deal to make the 3 games even with the diminishing returns commercially by each installment.

To me the answer is to not scope it like Remake and Rebirth, and in fact make the game smaller

 

[Gotdatmoney]

FF7 could've easily been a single game scoped around the same breadth of Rebirth, but frankly it would've probably been a lot less cost-effective than splitting it in 3. I mean, putting all of the story in a single game with a world scoped as Rebirth's (only bigger, due to a few regions missing) + Midgar (even if smaller than Remake's) + flying would've definitely have taken close to what the entire trilogy took to make (and would have costs proportional to that). So even if it sold like 10 million copies or something, it was still a better deal to make the 3 games even with the diminishing returns commercially by each installment.

There is no reason to believe if they scoped FF7 Remake to the same breadth as Rebirth (maybe a bit bigger) that it would somehow cost as much as 3 whole separate games that are what larger in scope combined. That makes absolutely 0 sense.

Even if it was a structurally bigger game, the time to make it would not be the 10 years the trilogy will take to make and it obviously wouldn't have all the same content since it wouldn't need to justify a full price tag 3x over, only once. It would be more expansive than any single game in the series but not more than all 3 combined.

Then there is the opportunity cost in making 3 games in which each subsequent title sells less while costing as much if not more than the one before. It's definitely is a better deal to make one game that would sell 10 million and have that staff free to make other potentially more attractive titles.