Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Square, FFXI, and the MMORPG

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the games-people-play-together dept.

LukeG writes "Squaresoft's latest instalment in the ubiquitous Final Fantasy series will mark huge departure from previous titles, as they gamble on the popularity of massively multiplayer gaming on consoles. The genre, already succesful on the PC, has yet to be tested on a console audience, but that is exactly what Square are planning with the groundbreaking release of Final Fantasy XI later this year on PS2." I'm interested to see the FF world taken to an MMORPG. If anyone can make the genre not suck, it's Square.

5 of 233 comments (clear)

  1. Synopsis -- just the facts by ProfKyne · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those who aren't interested in reading 9px Arial font with few line breaks, or the fanboy details/speculation (like what kind of magic Red Mages can use, or how desolate the Saltbelt Plains are), here's the meat of the story:

    • You can "communicate" with other players by selecting a symbol from a menu, which becomes like a "name tag" -- it hovers above your head, broadcasting your intentions to other players.
    • You can join a team of other players by broadcasting the right symbol.
    • At least in the beta, no multi-language chat facility (a la PhantasyStarOnline)
    • Teams can form alliances, up to three in an alliance
    • A leader must be selected when an alliance is formed, and this leader is highlighted in the game for all to see (i.e., a target)
    • Wandering monsters can be seen ahead of time and avoided
    • Not known if limit breaks are going to be included in battle
    • You can choose the race of your character, this obviously has implications for what its abilities will be
    • A class system may also be included. It has been designed, but it is still unknown at this point.

    All of that information is taken from the article, not my own a priori knowledge or opinion.

    --
    "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
  2. Re:Eh? by ProfKyne · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't get it. How final is a fantasy when there are dozen of them?

    Taken from www.videogames.com, here is the origin of the name "Final Fantasy".

    Sometime in 1987, a small Japanese publishing company named Square Co. LTD. was in desperate need of a hit. Until this point, Square had mostly published smaller games for the Famicom Disk system. The titles sold respectably, but the modest installed base of Famicom Disk systems made blockbuster status an elusive goal. Hironobu Sakaguchi had an idea: why not create a game similar to competitor Enix's Dragon Quest? The console RPG was a big hit with gamers, and Sakaguchi thought that Square could significantly improve upon the basic formula. Thus work began on a massive one-megabit cartridge role-playing game that would attempt to revolutionize the genre. All of Square's resources, dreams, and hopes were placed on this single game. If it failed, Square would be no more. The project, as Square's final gasp, was given the name "Final Fantasy."
    --
    "First you gotta do the truffle shuffle."
  3. Re:This might be lame but.. by 1stLexicon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game

  4. Good luck, It's gonna be tough. by rgold · · Score: 4, Informative
    Over the past three months, I've been doing some business-model consulting to a company with a struggling MMORPG game. Given that experience, here are a few reasons why I think Square will have a difficult time with this (although I honestly hope they succeed)...

    1. Revenue Model I'd love to know how Square intends to charge for the game. Generally, MMORPG games for the PC use a two-part revenue model: $9-$50 for the game software, then an additional $5-$13 per month for a game subscription.

    Given the massively multi-player nature of the games, they require enormous support including servers, game masters, billing and account support and on and on. For a decent analysis of these costs, check this out. The bottom line is that it's expensive, way more expensive than your normal game. Square has two sets of considerations here: They probably don't want to become the company to try charging a monthy fee to Console folks who tend to skew younger and have less experience with this genre. This would lead them to either jack up the software price and minimze the monthly fee, or design a game that runs more like Diablo and less like a true MMORPG. On the other hand, these games have network effects, the more people playing them, the more fun they are. That would encourage square to come to market with a low price and use the subscription model to make it up on the backend. It will be interesting to see which way they go.

    2. Audience and appeal Despite the buzz, the existing market for MMORPG games is very small, maybe 3.5-4 Million worldwide, and arguably only 1-2 million in the US. They are a unique bunch of people. Given the hardware issues its relatively clear that a console isn't the best platform for these types of games. To overcome that, a console game will need to broaden it's appeal and lower the complexity and learning curve considerably in order to succeed. It will be interesting to see what things square removes from the genre to do this. Based on the coverage in the article, it seems as though trade skills will go completely. So will (I guess) much of the politics and diplomacy with respect to clans and factions. What they have left will be something very different than todays MMORPGs. It sounds like MMORPG lite. Not a bad thing, just very very differnt.

    In the mean time, people like LucasArts are working on Star Wars Galaxies to try to popularize the genre a bit by using a huge and popular license. It will be interesting to see which way is more effective.

    3. Cost These things are big budget to develop. Given Square's failed film and new management, it will be interesting to see how much cash they are willing to risk on something this new. Square has never been known to go cheap, and I bet they risk a bundle on it. It had the potential to be another very high profile flop for them.

    But then again, nothing risked, nothing gained.

    It should be fun to see what happens. -rg

  5. Re:It's hardly groundbreaking. by IronChef · · Score: 3, Informative


    There's a very good reason for doing combat EQ-style -- it's a lower barrier to participation.

    For a game to really hit the mass market, as EQ has, it needs to appeal to geeky guys, less geeky guys and even un-geeky women. EQ does that and the fact that there are no rigorous action components to the game makes this possible.

    If EQ had Quake-style combat I bet it would have far fewer participants. There's a place for that kind of product (Planetside), but it will always lag far behind a game that 30 year old geeks and 15 year old schoolgirls can enjoy equally.