• Welcome to Install Base!
    Join the Community and gain access to Prediction Leagues, Polls, specific answers and exclusive content now!
Headlines

Square Enix "hoped for more" from Final Fantasy 16 sales, expensed all costs in FY24 Q1 so future sales will all be profits

Reader mode
On the AAA front, part of the problem is SE's inability to provide the market with something it wants.

The management of their IP and their legacy titles is another problem.

Capcom is doing so much better on both fronts without necessarily being neither a better developer or a better publisher. The solution is already there, SE need to be less stubborn.
 
ILikeFeet said:
Was it an actual plan or was it something akin to "see how the game performed after 18 months to determine how we go on with the IP"?
Click to expand...
We don't know. There is no DLC, no new collaborations, nothing else announced. But again it has 6 month exclusivity and thus the remaining 12 months include PC sales probably. Will it explode in popularity on PC? Doubt.

Celestial said:
Is it just me or does it not make sense to change strategy to emphasize AAA even more? Forspoken bombed and FF16 isn't necessarily lighting up the charts (but doing decently). It seems like a big risk to gut AA projects (which Nier Automata basically was) and instead go even more in on the even riskier and resource-intensive AAA space.
Click to expand...
It is a tough situation. Small games do not generate enough revenue (unless it is a mobile game) and basically a low risk - low reward.
 
GodlyTrident said:
It is a tough situation. Small games do not generate enough revenue (unless it is a mobile game) and basically a low risk - low reward.
Click to expand...
In the same hardware cycle that brought us Fishing Spirits, Fitness Boxing and a Momotaro Dentetsu game selling something north of 3 million units, is this still actually true?

Seems to me that the reward has a wider range of possibilities that narrow with greater levels of risk taken on.
 
Celestial said:
Is it just me or does it not make sense to change strategy to emphasize AAA even more? Forspoken bombed and FF16 isn't necessarily lighting up the charts (but doing decently). It seems like a big risk to gut AA projects (which Nier Automata basically was) and instead go even more in on the even riskier and resource-intensive AAA space.
Click to expand...
Their challenge and restructuring must come for multiplatform day 1 and a marketing team that works.
 
I wonder what's Sony's read on FFXVI's performance, and how that will inform their next plans towards buying timed exclusivity from Square...
 
storres said:
Their challenge and restructuring must come for multiplatform day 1 and a marketing team that works.
Click to expand...
Well, they certainly should stop random drops of the games with close to none marketing. A lot of their smaller games suffered from that.
 
It's true that smaller games had a "bomb label" on them, by SE (think about Diofield Chronicles and such), but AA games have been pretty succesfull on the other hand (think about Mana, Octopath, Triangle...)
The AAA side of things had HUGE failures (like the Marvel game or Forespoken) but surely it is normal for them to insist with the big production values like FFXVI, also to cement their status among Japanese developers and getting possible Sony (or maybe even Xbox in the distant future) checks for the "prestige" of their IPs
 
“Focused strategy - less mid sized, more larger AAA console games, company said will take several years to impact”

I don’t like the sound of that…..
MarcoP90 said:
I don't think titles such as SaGa and Mana (be it new entries or remasters), as well as Asano games are the ones generally in danger with the already-discussed reduction of AA production (this isn't the first time Square Enix mentioned it), since, well, they actually do perform well. It's the likes of DioField Chronicle, Babylon's Fall, Chocobo GP, Valkyrie Elysium and Star Ocean 6, and by that I mean not necessarily those franchises but those kind of projects with their range of critical and commercial reception, that will presumably see significant reduction.
Click to expand...
I hope you’re right. As long as the Asano games survive, then I can accept it a little more.
 
Kenka said:
On the AAA front, part of the problem is SE's inability to provide the market with something it wants.

The management of their IP and their legacy titles is another problem.

Capcom is doing so much better on both fronts without necessarily being neither a better developer or a better publisher. The solution is already there, SE need to be less stubborn.
Click to expand...
"Better developer" is of course subjective, but I think we can say with confidence that Capcom is a better publisher than S-E, if only because being a good publisher is primarily measured by sustained and repeated success

I would love for Square-Enix to be as successful managing Final Fantasy as Capcom is at Resident Evil, or even Monster Hunter
 
Jimmy Joe said:
"Better developer" is of course subjective, but I think we can say with confidence that Capcom is a better publisher than S-E, if only because being a good publisher is primarily measured by sustained and repeated success

I would love for Square-Enix to be as successful managing Final Fantasy as Capcom is at Resident Evil, or even Monster Hunter
Click to expand...
It's a FF problem though and that's a failure on the FF Committee's part. DQ (Hori/AP) and KH (Nomura) aren't really having these issues commercially because their stewards are steering the ship differently.
 
Aostia82 said:
but AA games have been pretty succesfull on the other hand (think about Mana, Octopath, Triangle...)
Click to expand...
Are they really that successful? Keep in mind that SE is a huge publisher. It is not like they are a small studio for whom indie hit is enough to stay afloat.

Jimmy Joe said:
"Better developer" is of course subjective, but I think we can say with confidence that Capcom is a better publisher than S-E, if only because being a good publisher is primarily measured by sustained and repeated success
Click to expand...
Capcom essentially bet on PC and won.
 
GodlyTrident said:
Are they really that successful? Keep in mind that SE is a huge publisher. It is not like they are a small studio for whom indie hit is enough to stay afloat.


Capcom essentially bet on PC and won.
Click to expand...
AA games can be successful, but not enough to run the whole ship.

In 2022, for example, Square Enix most successful games were LaL and Triangle Strategy. We didn't receive milestone for the other games released that year.

That said, we can assume those two were the most successful games from Square that CY.
 
GodlyTrident said:
Are they really that successful? Keep in mind that SE is a huge publisher. It is not like they are a small studio for whom indie hit is enough to stay afloat.
Click to expand...

I've never said they should survive just thanks to AA games, on the contrary I said they obviously should push the AAA projects for many reasons
Just better focused efforts in that field, imho (even DQXI has been poorly focused lol)
But yes, those AA games have been succesfull: more than 3mil for Octopath, with Nintendo marketing and distribution deal? Gret success; more than 1mil for Triangle Strategy? Too. I don't remember if Live a Live hit the 1mil milestone, but Mana for example has been so succesfull to convince SE to plan the development of a brand new episode for example. And so on.

storres said:
AA games can be successful, but not enough to run the whole ship.

In 2022, for example, Square Enix most successful games were LaL and Triangle Strategy. We didn't receive milestone for the other games released that year.

That said, we can assume those two were the most successful games from Square that CY.
Click to expand...

Yup!

Damage2 said:
What would be the ideal multiplataform strategy for Square?

PS5/Xbox/PC or PS5/Xbox/PC/Switch 2?
Click to expand...

I think it totally depends on the brand, each choice should be ade on a game-by-game base strategy
It also depends on: when is the Switch 2 launching? How powerful will it be?
But in particular, I'd say that they should better recognize if Japan is still a main focus for many of their Jrpg, strategy game, and so on..or not. I can't fathom in this very moment a Japanese landscape where skipping a "portable-also" Nintendo console would be a wise choice for that kind of products

More "high-end" graphic game aimed at West? Probably nobody would criticize them for going full "PS7PC/XBOX" skipping Switch, at least IMHO, of course!

Let's say that the more console you put your demanding (budget-wise) game, the better, unless a big check comes in
 
Damage2 said:
What would be the ideal multiplataform strategy for Square?

PS5/Xbox/PC or PS5/Xbox/PC/Switch 2?
Click to expand...
More is always better, especially the bigger your game is. Exclusivity deals make more sense for new IP or AA stuff that can use a helping hand, not your flagship AAA series.

I think it'll depend on where NX2 falls capability wise though. If FFXVI can run on it, it should be included.
 
Damage2 said:
What would be the ideal multiplataform strategy for Square?

PS5/Xbox/PC or PS5/Xbox/PC/Switch 2?
Click to expand...
The widest net possible within their capacity- especially if development costs for getting software on additional platforms can be kept low. If the Switch successor meets their baseline for last gen hardware and/or their lower PC configurations, they should adapt their pipeline early as a generational investment for easier porting. Assuming the new hardware is a success, this allows them to pull from every demographic and ecosystem pool without missing out on potential buyers as a result of where they do their gaming.
 
fiendcode said:
It's a FF problem though and that's a failure on the FF Committee's part. DQ (Hori/AP) and KH (Nomura) aren't really having these issues commercially because their stewards are steering the ship differently.
Click to expand...
KH3 had awful legs going from 5m first week to 6.7m (only 1.7m extra) in 4+ years
 
Blue Monty said:
KH3 had awful legs going from 5m first week to 6.7m (only 1.7m extra) in 4+ years
Click to expand...
True enough, I'm not saying these properties have been handled perfectly but they have been handled better than FF. Because they're not declining, at least not yet.

I think there's plenty of criticism to levy at KH and DQ, PC/Switch strategies in particular for KH and timing generally for DQ, but I think there are missed opportunities with Capcom too. I think we can do this with any of the big JP 3rd parties really.
 
I don't understand why SE didn't release any high-quality Dragon Quest games, whether they were remakes or mainline games, to capitalise on the massive Nintendo Switch user base in Japan. Capcom, on the other hand, had released RE2R, RE3R, RE8, and RE4R right after RE7. A total of four triple-A titles without holding back their resources while SE was playing safe with DQ series with low-effort titles like DQX offline, Dragon Quest Treasure, and a new DQM.
 
Blue Monty said:
KH3 had awful legs going from 5m first week to 6.7m (only 1.7m extra) in 4+ years
Click to expand...
6.7M number it was by September 2021, so less that 3 years not 4 and before the PC port release
Post automatically merged:

Bodokoh said:
I don't understand why SE didn't release any high-quality Dragon Quest games, whether they were remakes or mainline games, to capitalise on the massive Nintendo Switch user base in Japan. Capcom, on the other hand, had released RE2R, RE3R, RE8, and RE4R right after RE7. A total of four triple-A titles without holding back their resources while SE was playing safe with DQ series with low-effort titles like DQX offline, Dragon Quest Treasure, and a new DQM.
Click to expand...
But they released?

Dragon Quest Treasures and Dragon Quest Monsters 3 are Switch games and we still have 3-HD to be released
 
Blue Monty said:
70$ have more room for discounts than 60$ games, most 70$ games get a discount to 53-55$ 2-3 months after release but not that much for months
Click to expand...
Yeah this was my first thought. The downside is this can hurt initial sales long term when people expect deep discounts.
storres said:


Toyo Securities Yasuda says FF16 wasn't commercially successful and Square Enix would need to change its game-making structure

Wake up, babe! Mochi's back!
Click to expand...

Still going to see people claiming this is not the case and it’s a big success. It’s honestly just getting annoying at this point. It’s like people have decided FF doesn’t come with a AAA budget, it’s clearly expensive and we know it’s not units sold to support that. It doesn’t even matter if it makes it’s budget back, that’s not how investment decisions work.

Meanwhile FF7 part two is about to come crashing in as well…
 
FFVII Rebirth and Final Fantasy XVI are two pretty different games, just because you of these didnt do well, it doesnt mean that Rebirth its going to flop
 
Damage2 said:
FFVII Rebirth and Final Fantasy XVI are two pretty different games, just because you of these didnt do well, it doesnt mean that Rebirth its going to flop
Click to expand...
Final Fantasy XVI isn't a flop/didn't do well. The game did well, and that's exactly the problem. The game wasn't supposed to do well, it was supposed to breakout.
 
storres said:
Final Fantasy XVI isn't a flop/didn't do well. The game did well, and that's exactly the problem. The game wasn't supposed to do well, it was supposed to breakout.
Click to expand...
That i can agree, it wasnt that breakout hit that Yoshida expected
 
Damage2 said:
Dragon Quest Treasures and Dragon Quest Monsters 3 are Switch games and we still have 3-HD to be released
Click to expand...
Maybe you can argue Monsters 3. But treasures is not high quality. When even the developer tells you it was a rejected Monsters game, you know it’s a lower tier game they just didn’t want to completely trash.
 
Bodokoh said:
I don't understand why SE didn't release any high-quality Dragon Quest games, whether they were remakes or mainline games, to capitalise on the massive Nintendo Switch user base in Japan. Capcom, on the other hand, had released RE2R, RE3R, RE8, and RE4R right after RE7. A total of four triple-A titles without holding back their resources while SE was playing safe with DQ series with low-effort titles like DQX offline, Dragon Quest Treasure, and a new DQM.
Click to expand...
with the way SE seems to be moving off of mid-budget titles, I feel like Dragon Quest spin offs will hit the chopping block
 
ILikeFeet said:
with the way SE seems to be moving off of mid-budget titles, I feel like Dragon Quest spin offs will hit the chopping block
Click to expand...
Naw, they're mega cheap and still do 300-600k in Japan alone. Bring on Slime Morimori 4 and Itadaki Street S!
 
fiendcode said:
True enough, I'm not saying these properties have been handled perfectly but they have been handled better than FF. Because they're not declining, at least not yet.

I think there's plenty of criticism to levy at KH and DQ, PC/Switch strategies in particular for KH and timing generally for DQ, but I think there are missed opportunities with Capcom too. I think we can do this with any of the big JP 3rd parties really.
Click to expand...
I get the point you're making and agree. We can do this for any third party publisher. Capcom for example needs to start taking a page more out of Nintendo's / Square Enix's books and start treating themselves like a big publisher again, with a renewed commitment to publishing games from non-internal studios (the only time recently I think they've done this was when Marvelous developed MHS2). They don't license enough and don't have enough developers and it affects the growth and coverage of their bases. You could do this with Nintendo even if you really wanted to, it would be very hard to criticize Nintendo given they're the most well ran major publisher in the world, but you could do it.

However I think there's a clear difference with Square Enix, because the most you can really say about their most well ran IP (KH/DQ etc) is that they're ran fine or good relative to franchise expectations but not great, which isn't true for other big japanese publishers. Dragon Quest has an entry that might just end up being the best selling game to date in Japan - but this is after a start that was just pretty good (3DS/PS4), and the platform it got the most sales from (3DS) wasn't even part of the intial plans, which is a blunder they won't repeat but still. Not to mention a lot of sales come from a Switch port, which probably had its fair share of double-dipping, so its unclear how much growth there actually is. While the series is selling really well, the spin-offs aren't doing as well as they used to and are being hampered from a quality perspective. It is worth mentioning though the mobile games do great. Overall I'd say DQ is definitely their most well ran franchise, but I think there's a decent amount of more missed potential, probably more than other pubs' biggest franchises, and I could see the series growth stagnating with a next entry that's not reliant on a port released years later. KH though I think is almost sort of badly managed, it's clearly a very big game and sells millions of units, but it hasn't become a pillar to SE's success like it probably should be, and Nomura's vision along with long development times and a lack of spin-offs is really making it seem like a smaller deal than it is. The sales potential of an SE game with Disney characters still seems like it should be bigger than KH3, and the franchise isn't really growing significantly past where it was in the PS2 days where it was harder to sell games. Not to mention how slow they've been to capitalize on Nier (which to be fair, it's very centralized to one creator).

I think that's really the major difference - even SE's best ran franchises have lots of missed potential, which I don't see in other pubs. Obviously series can always be bigger or get milked more often, there's always another revenue stream, but I think the difference here is the missed opportunities in games they've already shipped and streams they've already crossed.
 
MegaXZero said:
Maybe you can argue Monsters 3. But treasures is not high quality. When even the developer tells you it was a rejected Monsters game, you know it’s a lower tier game they just didn’t want to completely trash.
Click to expand...
It's not like the last few Monsters games have been high quality either.
 
AngryAlchemist said:
KH though I think is almost sort of badly managed, it's clearly a very big game and sells millions of units, but it hasn't become a pillar to SE's success like it probably should be, and Nomura's vision along with long development times and a lack of spin-offs is really making it seem like a smaller deal than it is
Click to expand...
KH should 100% launch on Switch 2 Day 1 if they want it truly to succeed. Also have KH games finally reached Steam or they are still in EGS?
 
I don’t see SE releasing any modern mainline FF game on Switch/Switch 2 other than some very old one that gets remastered.
 
Aren’t we veering into Square Enix Output Strategy talk in this thread? Figure that talk should be moved where it belongs and refocus on FFXVI’s performance specifically in here.
 
Terrell said:
Aren’t we veering into Square Enix Output Strategy talk in this thread? Figure that talk should be moved where it belongs and refocus on FFXVI’s performance specifically in here.
Click to expand...
I literally forgot where I was when I posted that and thought I was in the Output thread by the time I posted. My bad.
 
storres said:
Final Fantasy XVI isn't a flop/didn't do well. The game did well, and that's exactly the problem. The game wasn't supposed to do well, it was supposed to breakout.
Click to expand...

Pretty much. It did the average of what SE wanted, but they really wanted it to do great.
 
storres said:
Final Fantasy XVI isn't a flop/didn't do well. The game did well, and that's exactly the problem. The game wasn't supposed to do well, it was supposed to breakout.
Click to expand...
We don't know the production and marketing costs. It could really well be that FF16 made a loss and therefore could be called a flop.
 
EnergyDrink said:
We don't know the production and marketing costs. It could really well be that FF16 made a loss and therefore could be called a flop.
Click to expand...
Nah, Sony picked up marketing and Production is already covered.

Look at @ILikeFeet post. It is now on Sony's to decide if the partnership is worth the money.
 
FFXVI obviously wasn't profitable at launch. Hence why they refer to future sales being all profit. They expensed all its costs already. If it was profitable, they would've said so. I doubt it makes much money seeing as its legs seem relatively bad/mediocre everywhere.

SE needs to desperately fix their pipeline with mainline FF. None of this is gonna end well for the franchise at this rate.
 
I suppose this is part of that 18 month sales plan. We'll see what the DLC is and if it will be something that could boost the game more or not. Also, the fact that they aren't even providing an update on the PC version until later this year doesn't give me high hopes it will be a speedy port (although if they take their time hopefully it will at least be a quality one).
 
My guess is they'll have the 2 DLCs and PC ports all out within 18 months and likely spaced equally apart. 1st DLC sometime late this year (potential TGA shadowdrop?), 2nd in the summer, and the PC version near the end of 2024. After that...maybe and Xbox and NS2 version in summer 2025?
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom