Square Enix will "aggressively pursue a multiplatform strategy that includes Nintendo platforms, PlayStation, Xbox, and PCs"

[Danny]

Whether it's an "ideological push" or not, I think it makes little sense not to support multiplatform releases of primarily Unreal Engine-powered titles, just like it's a no-brainer to make Ace Attorney multiplatform after doing the work to make RE Engine multiplatform. The opportunity cost is extremely low and despite Xbox' typical self-sabotage, it's still mid-generation with millions of consoles sold, and those customers will see the marketing spend for your game on YouTube like everyone else. There's little reason to abandon this market until you're making decisions for the next generation. Especially with Switch 2 on the horizon and basically sitting in touching distance of the power of Series S. The console market is enough of an aberration without customers repeatedly being put through the process of "sorry, you picked the wrong console, we're shifting support away now, despite using an engine that even indies can do simultaneous multiplatform releases with".


The opportunity cost is trivial if you are already keeping staff with multiplatform experience on hand and have already released multiple games on those platforms' SDKs, or are extensively using an engine that is multiplatform off-the-shelf. Most of that work is done. If you already support PC it's even more of a no-brainer because even costs for art assets to support Xbox inputs etc are transferable to Xbox ports. The combination of good tools/support and most 3rd parties' prior history with Xbox SDKs is what's maintaining Microsoft's 3rd party support at this point, they'll probably get decent 3rd party support for the remainder of this generation for that reason. I'm sure Gamepass sweetens the deal but if Microsoft have any sense at all they need to cool it with the 3rd party deals - their current approach is like imagining if Netflix looked at their situation 10 years ago and thought "hmm yes, our platform's success is based primarily on 3rd party studios who can hold their content hostage every contract negotiation until we pay massive sums, let's keep doubling down on this forever and it'll all work out." Xbox will die if they need to pay 3rd parties to show up at all.

We do know that before gamepass and Microsoft spending money to get ports, JRPG games almost never released on Xbox because they were losing money releasing those games on Xbox. That was rectified by Microsoft spending money to get those games on Xbox, but the reality is without Xbox spending money to get those ports those ports would not be made because the sales potential is not there to justify it.

 

[GoldenFingers]

I don't see how SE can lose money these ports.
Costs to port an Xbox one game to PS4 are almost 0 (and same in the opposite way).

There's still QA, at least, and support for store fronts, etc. These million seller JRPGs though will almost definitely sell over 10k LTD with late PS ports, which is absolutely NOT a true statement for PS to Xbox ports. I think Triangle Strategy, for example, would struggle to be profitable on Xbox without Game Pass money. I imagine there's semi notable JRPG ports that do Phoenix Wright port numbers. There's also an element of saturation on a smaller market, not just in terms of stepping on sales but dealing with the finite limit of however many GP games Microsoft is willing to pay for at any given time.

Octopath 1 did wildly better on PC than would have been expected of a late port of a 2018 JRPG. The evidence really wasn't there before then that the PC market was blowing up as a major market for JRPGs. At this point SE is one of the largest publishers on Steam and pretty ncuh everything is a near lock to make it over. Most of the MIA games are confirmed to be coming or in need of substantial remakes/remasters/rebuilds.

 

[Danny]

Yoshi P answers if Final Fantasy XIV will be released on Switch 2:

My goal, for more than 10 years at this point, is to play FFXIV regardless of device and be able to access the servers to play in the same world.

We would love to have our title (FFXIV) available on Nintendo's platform. But it did take a lot of time (regarding FFXIV on Xbox). We had literally talked for years and it's now finally coming to fruition. Again, we will try our best and continue to work hard at it and continue our efforts. But yeah, eventually, it would be cool to make it a reality one day.

I would take the answer as a no, given that it could take years to port it over and the game may not even be relevant in that timeframe.

 

[MegaXZero]

Yoshi P answers if Final Fantasy XIV will be released on Switch 2:





I would take the answer as a no, given that it could take years to port it over and the game may not even be relevant in that timeframe.

From the sound of it he wants to and if the suits are committed to actual multiplat, then he’ll suddenly really want to. Xbox years to port seem more down to how monetization was implemented then the actual port, given the state of the game on Xbox. Nintendo has usually been the most lax in this regard

 

[Vergus]

Whether it's an "ideological push" or not, I think it makes little sense not to support multiplatform releases of primarily Unreal Engine-powered titles, just like it's a no-brainer to make Ace Attorney multiplatform after doing the work to make RE Engine multiplatform. The opportunity cost is extremely low and despite Xbox' typical self-sabotage, it's still mid-generation with millions of consoles sold, and those customers will see the marketing spend for your game on YouTube like everyone else. There's little reason to abandon this market until you're making decisions for the next generation. Especially with Switch 2 on the horizon and basically sitting in touching distance of the power of Series S. The console market is enough of an aberration without customers repeatedly being put through the process of "sorry, you picked the wrong console, we're shifting support away now, despite using an engine that even indies can do simultaneous multiplatform releases with".

I mean, what you're saying is what an "ideological push" means. You don't do these kind of stuff just because you can as business. At the end, you're talking more from a consumer perspective than a business on. I'll say it again, but I understand why people want to think this way. Like your end words, consumers don't want to have their choices limited regardless of it's justified or not business wise. The fact that it's on Xbox, even if very few people are willing to buy the game there, creates less anguish on the consumers' part. But unfortunately, that's where our agreement ends. You have to reconcile with the fact that consumer demands and business sense aren't the same. You can't claim that something makes perfect business just because they can do something good for consumers. Even Ace Attorney required a Game Pass deal for the Apollo trilogy to show up after the OG trilogy flopped, and Mega Man Battle Network completely skipped Xbox.

No developer is going to port to a platform if there are no financial incentives involved. And again, I get this train of thought is appealing because obviously having games on more platforms is good for the consumers, but you can't just conflate consumer and business perspectives to argue that every decision to port makes perfect sense. For example, even the Switch doesn't deserve some ports that sold poorly on it. It's not just limited to Xbox.

The opportunity cost is trivial if you are already keeping staff with multiplatform experience on hand and have already released multiple games on those platforms' SDKs, or are extensively using an engine that is multiplatform off-the-shelf. Most of that work is done. If you already support PC it's even more of a no-brainer because even costs for art assets to support Xbox inputs etc are transferable to Xbox ports. The combination of good tools/support and most 3rd parties' prior history with Xbox SDKs is what's maintaining Microsoft's 3rd party support at this point, they'll probably get decent 3rd party support for the remainder of this generation for that reason. I'm sure Gamepass sweetens the deal but if Microsoft have any sense at all they need to cool it with the 3rd party deals - their current approach is like imagining if Netflix looked at their situation 10 years ago and thought "hmm yes, our platform's success is based primarily on 3rd party studios who can hold their content hostage every contract negotiation until we pay massive sums, let's keep doubling down on this forever and it'll all work out." Xbox will die if they need to pay 3rd parties to show up at all.

We honestly don't know enough about the porting costs and opportunity costs considering how much info is obscured by NDAs, but it's definitely not trivial like people claim it to be. And the truth, Xbox is dying (that's a topic for another thread) because they needed to pay more for third-party support. They wouldn't have gotten games like Yakuza and Persona if they made no attempts to sweeten the deal with other financial incentives. It's not just Game Pass, but financial support for porting and marketing. There are lot of costs involved. Being familiar with the Xbox platform isn't enough of a justification to unconditionally support the platform. There are games that don't require those deals, and that would be AAA games since every million counts (and PlayStation deals would've covered a lot of dev costs already). But not smaller titles, so I have to disagree with you on this.

 

[fiendcode]

YoshiP gave similar non-answers to XIV on Switch 1 years ago, saying there were endless "talks" and even shifting the onus on imaginary Nintendo regulations that needed to be overcome. Don't hold your breath, it really should've happened by now.

 

[KarlRemarx]

I mean, what you're saying is what an "ideological push" means. You don't do these kind of stuff just because you can as business. At the end, you're talking more from a consumer perspective than a business on. I'll say it again, but I understand why people want to think this way. Like your end words, consumers don't want to have their choices limited regardless of it's justified or not business wise. The fact that it's on Xbox, even if very few people are willing to buy the game there, creates less anguish on the consumers' part. But unfortunately, that's where our agreement ends. You have to reconcile with the fact that consumer demands and business sense aren't the same. You can't claim that something makes perfect business just because they can do something good for consumers. Even Ace Attorney required a Game Pass deal for the Apollo trilogy to show up after the OG trilogy flopped, and Mega Man Battle Network completely skipped Xbox.

No developer is going to port to a platform if there are no financial incentives involved. And again, I get this train of thought is appealing because obviously having games on more platforms is good for the consumers, but you can't just conflate consumer and business perspectives to argue that every decision to port makes perfect sense. For example, even the Switch doesn't deserve some ports that sold poorly on it. It's not just limited to Xbox.

We honestly don't know enough about the porting costs and opportunity costs considering how much info is obscured by NDAs, but it's definitely not trivial like people claim it to be. And the truth, Xbox is dying (that's a topic for another thread) because they needed to pay more for third-party support. They wouldn't have gotten games like Yakuza and Persona if they made no attempts to sweeten the deal with other financial incentives. It's not just Game Pass, but financial support for porting and marketing. There are lot of costs involved. Being familiar with the Xbox platform isn't enough of a justification to unconditionally support the platform. There are games that don't require those deals, and that would be AAA games since every million counts (and PlayStation deals would've covered a lot of dev costs already). But not smaller titles, so I have to disagree with you on this.

Yeah I actually agree that in Xbox' case it is most likely too late for them to course-correct (their leadership appears neither willing nor able to identify and address the problems, IMO) and they are now in a position where all they can do is throw money at 3rd parties to keep them showing up. Was thinking more hypothetically about how best practice would be to support whatever viable hardware your multiplatform engine supports (especially when you've already supported the platform with other games on the same engine), but I suppose the definition of "viable" is the issue and Xbox is no longer meeting that criteria.

 

[ILikeFeet]

FF14 as a cloud game would make the most sense for Switch/Drake. at least there would be less complaints given it's an MMO. that said, locality improves user experience a good deal, so they should at least attempt it if possible

 

[GoldenFingers]

IMO Streaming is the best solution for MMO ports in general. There's a huge cost of keeping MMOs up and running on old hardware for long period of times. There's weird account issues to contend with repurchases and online games. People want to play games when out and about. FF14 benefits from having a sloth-like Universal Cooldown. A slight upsell on top of a subscription fee to enable Stream Anywhere seems natural.

 

[Refyref]

Streaming would be bad even for an MMO, as like other streaming titles, it would be inaccessible in many different countries, whereas a normal version would work fine in those places. There is really no excuse not to make a proper version of what it one of SE's most important sources of income.

 

[Danny]

Streaming would be bad even for an MMO, as like other streaming titles, it would be inaccessible in many different countries, whereas a normal version would work fine in those places. There is really no excuse not to make a proper version of what it one of SE's most important sources of income.

But its probably too late for a native port of XIV to happen, according to Yoshi P they haven't even started having discussions about porting it to Switch/Switch 2. Meaning that a port is years away and the game may not be that relevant in that timeframe. So i think streaming is the only option for XIV to come out on Switch/Switch 2.

 

[Kanann]

Even 144hz gaming PC with as few as input lag as possible and mindly expensive internet package focusing on gaming I still can’t survive some of the boss move sets.

FF14 on cloud will be disaster.

 

[GodlyTrident]

Streaming would be bad even for an MMO, as like other streaming titles, it would be inaccessible in many different countries, whereas a normal version would work fine in those places. There is really no excuse not to make a proper version of what it one of SE's most important sources of income.

Streaming worked fine with WoW and Geforce Now. And regarding accessibility - better than no accessibility at all? Plus we have stuff like PSN not being available in hundred+ countries. It is not something unusual.

 

[GoldenFingers]

As long as FF14 supports PS4, a Switch 2 version is I think plausible. But we are nearing the point in PS5's lifetime that corresponds to roughly where PS3 support was stopped into PS4's lifetime. PS4 is holding up better than PS3 did, but MMOs have a huge amount of content. A Switch 1 version of FF14 would plausibly be the most expensive port in the platform over how much content there is to be optimized. Each expansion is a large RPG's worth of content.

 

[Refyref]

But its probably too late for a native port of XIV to happen, according to Yoshi P they haven't even started having discussions about porting it to Switch/Switch 2. Meaning that a port is years away and the game may not be that relevant in that timeframe. So i think streaming is the only option for XIV to come out on Switch/Switch 2.

The whole point of the big change on SE's tactics is supposed to be the focus on multiplatform rather than letting uninterested producers make slow, minimum moves. If they want this shift to have any chance of success, they will HAVE to be able to complete ports far faster than taking a whole generation. Especially when the product in question is something that will bring in a lot of money, due to the high monetization rates of MMO players.

Streaming worked fine with WoW and Geforce Now. And regarding accessibility - better than no accessibility at all? Plus we have stuff like PSN not being available in hundred+ countries. It is not something unusual.

It having worked for you doesn't mean it works fine for most people, especially with something as finicky as game streaming. And what's with this false dichotomy of "cloud or nothing"? Again, if SE really learned from their mistakes of the past years, they'd wouldn't take such a terrible approach.

 

[GoldenFingers]

It having worked for you doesn't mean it works fine for most people, especially with something as finicky as game streaming. And what's with this false dichotomy of "cloud or nothing"? Again, if SE really learned from their mistakes of the past years, they'd wouldn't take such a terrible apapproach.

Square Enix is already the global leader in console subscription MMOs. You're acting like they are behind and trying to copy somebody else's strategy, which, uh, don't exist.

 

[fiendcode]

As long as FF14 supports PS4, a Switch 2 version is I think plausible. But we are nearing the point in PS5's lifetime that corresponds to roughly where PS3 support was stopped into PS4's lifetime. PS4 is holding up better than PS3 did, but MMOs have a huge amount of content. A Switch 1 version of FF14 would plausibly be the most expensive port in the platform over how much content there is to be optimized. Each expansion is a large RPG's worth of content.

I think the biggest ongoing issue is going to be RAM, which is why the PS3 version was dropped originally. Even beyond PS4, Series S is going to hold the floor a bit anyway so might as well keep PS4 going.

 

[Refyref]

Square Enix is already the global leader in console subscription MMOs. You're acting like they are behind and trying to copy somebody else's strategy, which, uh, don't exist.

No, I'm saying that bad platform decisions are what lead it to this hole, and forgoing a potential avenue for large earnings because the indifference of producers would simply mean staying on the same road.

 

[Danny]

The whole point of the big change on SE's tactics is supposed to be the focus on multiplatform rather than letting uninterested producers make slow, minimum moves. If they want this shift to have any chance of success, they will HAVE to be able to complete ports far faster than taking a whole generation. Especially when the product in question is something that will bring in a lot of money, due to the high monetization rates of MMO players.

It having worked for you doesn't mean it works fine for most people, especially with something as finicky as game streaming. And what's with this false dichotomy of "cloud or nothing"? Again, if SE really learned from their mistakes of the past years, they'd wouldn't take such a terrible approach.

I don't think a port of XIV is the real test, the real test if they will have future AAA games coming out day 1 everywhere, including on Switch 2.

 

[GoldenFingers]

I think the biggest ongoing issue is going to be RAM, which is why the PS3 version was dropped originally. Even beyond PS4, Series S is going to hold the floor a bit anyway so might as well keep PS4 going.

I think that's really insightful. Despite being very different total specs, PS4, Series S, and Switch 2 will likely incentivize SE to have low-RAM optimization for everything in a way that extends their support for FF14 by greatly lowering the port and maintenance costs per edition. So I think a Switch 2 version is going to be coming and really not far after launch, and that PS4 will likely be supported for at least another few more years.

 

[duvjones]

I don't think a port of XIV is the real test, the real test if they will have future AAA games coming out day 1 everywhere, including on Switch 2.

AAA publishers are doing to have to build that expectation over time, despite everyone wanting a turn-key solution.... I doubt that there is much of one on any platform.

I think that's really insightful. Despite being very different total specs, PS4, Series S, and Switch 2 will likely incentivize SE to have low-RAM optimization for everything in a way that extends their support for FF14 by greatly lowering the port and maintenance costs per edition. So I think a Switch 2 version is going to be coming and really not far after launch, and that PS4 will likely be supported for at least another few more years.

I think that the thing that we should all keep a note of is where the development centre will be. Will SE begin to target the lowest common denominator when it comes to specs and port elsewhere? I don't think in this market that SE get a lot of choices in that but it has also been the most reluctant on doing that.

 

[EnergyDrink]

But its probably too late for a native port of XIV to happen, according to Yoshi P they haven't even started having discussions about porting it to Switch/Switch 2. Meaning that a port is years away and the game may not be that relevant in that timeframe. So i think streaming is the only option for XIV to come out on Switch/Switch 2.

I mean other developer ported bigger and technical more demanding games in less than a year. These whole "it takes years" is ridiculous.

 

[Danny]

I mean other developer ported bigger and technical more demanding games in less than a year. These whole "it takes years" is ridiculous.

The thing is, Square Enix obviously does not see XIV on a Nintendo platform as a priority, and if its not a priority it won't come out fast because they will allocate their resources more to their priorities first.

 

[Joseki]

Life is Strage is coming to PS5/XBS/PC and NSW at a later date.

You can’t say they aren’t staying true to their plan right now.

 

[Aostia82]

Life is Strage is coming to PS5/XBS/PC and NSW at a later date.

You can’t say they aren’t staying true to their plan right now.

We can say that all their announcements AFTER that sentence have been full multiplatform, is that right?
That said, LiS was alreeady fully multiplatform, wasn't it?

 

[fiendcode]

Yeah, stuff coming now or soon will have been under the previous approach. We won't see the real fruits of this full multiplatform pivot until probably late 2025+ (conveniently well after Switch 2 launch).

 

[duvjones]

Yeah, stuff coming now or soon will have been under the previous approach. We won't see the real fruits of this full multiplatform pivot until probably late 2025+ (conveniently well after Switch 2 launch).

It might be a little quicker than that... depending on what is in the pipeline but you are not wrong to expect a lag between the old approach and the new one.

 

[Aostia82]

yeah, also because the Switch2 SHOULD close a bit the actual gap (that, in all honesty...is too big of a gap, between Switch and PlayStation5) in terms of raw power/architecture

 

[KarlRemarx]

Yeah, stuff coming now or soon will have been under the previous approach. We won't see the real fruits of this full multiplatform pivot until probably late 2025+ (conveniently well after Switch 2 launch).

It might be a little quicker than that... depending on what is in the pipeline but you are not wrong to expect a lag between the old approach and the new one.

Yeah, 3 things are going to happen at completely different paces:

-The stuff that has sat uselessly as exclusives for completely arbitrary reasons will likely get turned around quickly (see: Kingdom Hearts suddenly getting a Steam release after years of sitting on EGS)
-The backlog of existing titles lacking multiplatform support will need to be worked through, scheduled and released (i.e. PC FF16/7Rebirth ports, DQMonsters for PS/XB/PC, however much of S-E's missing back catalogue they want to bring to Switch 2) without flooding the market
-Future releases going into production now will have mandated multiplatform support but these are years away

 

[Copilot]

This is the first time since the original PlayStation released that I’m legit wondering if any of these companies will be able to compete with Nintendo going forward. Are TLOU and GOW enough to warrant buying a PlayStation in the future?

Switch 2 should get a good number of Xbox games. CoD, Diablo 4, Sea of Thieves, Doom: The Dark Ages, Hi-Fi Rush, Rare Replay, even Forza Horizon 5. Also will get many games from Square and Namco that Switch 1 missed.

Should start very, very strong. Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid in 2025 and we shouldn't be far from 15 million consoles sold next year.

 

[fiendcode]

Switch 2 should get a good number of Xbox games. CoD, Diablo 4, Sea of Thieves, Doom: The Dark Ages, Hi-Fi Rush, Rare Replay, even Forza Horizon 5. Also will get many games from Square and Namco that Switch 1 missed.

Should start very, very strong. Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid in 2025 and we shouldn't be far from 15 million consoles sold next year.

I think there's a really good opportunity for taking FH5 multiplatform (PS5 too) and even better if timed with Switch 2 launch. Same for Halo Infinite/MCC though those might be too tight a deadline for next spring (?).

I worry about HFR with Tango's shutdown. Even more of travesty as I think it'd resonate most with Nintendo's audience.

 

[duvjones]

-The stuff that has sat uselessly as exclusives for completely arbitrary reasons will likely get turned around quickly (see: Kingdom Hearts suddenly getting a Steam release after years of sitting on EGS)

EGS's API is not the same as Stream's and Stream's happens to be much old. That is going to take some time to tie up, regardless of what folks think.

-The backlog of existing titles lacking multiplatform support will need to be worked through, scheduled and released (i.e. PC FF16/7Rebirth ports, DQMonsters for PS/XB/PC, however much of S-E's missing back catalogue they want to bring to Switch 2) without flooding the market
-Future releases going into production now will have mandated multiplatform support but these are years away

Yeah, I am still question what is the intended execution going to be because again, just saying "multiplatform" doesn't really get into how they are going to do.

Should start very, very strong. Pokémon, Mario, Zelda and Metroid in 2025 and we shouldn't be far from 15 million consoles sold next year.

We'll have to see, but the future has yet to be written nothing has been set yet.

 

[EnergyDrink]

The thing is, Square Enix obviously does not see XIV on a Nintendo platform as a priority, and if its not a priority it won't come out fast because they will allocate their resources more to their priorities first.

Yes that is obvious, but it is still strange. All their IPs are dying in Japan and have mediocre success elsewhere, and instead making the most simple move on port these games to the Switch they just keep on making bad moves.