Slashdot Mirror


Square Enix President Looks To Online Play

Gamespot has a story detailing comments by Square Enix president Youichi Wada. In the article, they touch on the fact that Square is going to be increasingly looking to online play in their future games. From the article: "Wada predicted that online games will be Square Enix's main source of income in the future. 'I think that over half of our income and profit will be based on network content [including games] by 2008 or 2009.'"

44 comments

  1. well thats the end of me buying them by cyrax777 · · Score: 2

    I refuse to pay to play a game. Witch is why final fantasy 11 is the only final fantasy game I havent played/own.

    1. Re:well thats the end of me buying them by game+kid · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it does scare me. Very few, if any, actual FFs (by "actual" I mean ones developed with Sakaguchi-san at teh helm) that I know of are coming, and now they want to bilk our money by charging us for the game and the online service. *sigh* I dunno about you guys, but that they are so concerned with financ^H^H^H^H^H^Hgrowth shall be the death knell for them IMO. I hope so; I can't see FF in their hands sans its creator, and I don't care much for their other games. Maybe if they make Rad Racer an MOG* or something I'd probably be excited for them anymore. I think.

      *multiplayer online game, not that other...whatever-the-hell that is.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:well thats the end of me buying them by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      Mog = a moogle contrary to popular belief (thanks to FF7) those puffy white creatres are called MOOGLES, not Mogs. Mog is a moogle.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  2. This could be cool by DuckofDeath87 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If they dont make many MMORPGs.
    There simply is not the market for many of them at all. Unless there is one flat fee to play all square-enix mmorpgs.

    Even then, I prepher the D2 and UT style online play. Where players have their own servers and it is free to play online.

    If that is the case. Then this is awsome. I would love it if they made a game like that for the DS. Or just an old school-esque FF game with online play.

    From what I have heard about FFXII an optional online mode like D2 could be great.

    1. Re:This could be cool by Datamonstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's how I read this article. Less console single player games, more online games. Bah! I don't mind this at all, unless the focus on multiplayer degrades the quality, or quantity, of single player console games. Networked gaming is great, but I really hope that it isn't the complete "future" of gaming. Financial issues aside, there is still the possibility of paying for something for which you may or may not be able to consume 100% of the content of.
      As it is right now I can max my characters and find ever item/secret in the game, but I'd have to pay a monthly fee and compete with 1000's of others to do that under an online model.
      Online gaming is not the equivilant replacement for single play.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
  3. Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Pluvius · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Last I checked, World of Warcraft gave them a thorough trouncing.

    Rob

    1. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Well, World of Warcraft just about scraped a slightly larger player base than FFXI... two years after FFXI's launch. I wouldn't write that off as a thorough trouncing by any stretch of the imagination. For a long time, FFXI was the largest non-Korean MMORPG around, comfortably ahead of the nearest rival, Everquest.

    2. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      FFXI has an estimated 500,000 subscribers. WoW has a known 1.25 MILLION subscribers. FFXI's figures are estimated because - well, they haven't bothered releasing the damned figures in over six months!

      And that's really strange, too, since they've released an expansion pack AND released in Europe since they last announced their figures. Why the hell haven't they announced that they're up past the 500,000 figure? Why not say "600,000" with the European release?

      Because, most likely, they AREN'T. It's actually quite likely that with the release of EverQuest 2 and World of Warcraft that they LOST a lot of subscribers, maybe as much as a quarter of all subscribers, even when counting the increase of subscribers from the European release.

      WoW hit DOUBLE their MAXIMUM subscription figures in THREE MONTHS. FFXI did that in TWO YEARS. I'd say WoW annihilated FFXI in popularity.

      But seriously, who cares? FFXI was only the "largest non-Korean MMORPG around" because of Japan. PC MMORPGs just aren't that popular in Japan, and so with FFXI being basically the only console MMORPG in town, it's not surprising that the Japanese inflated it's subscription figures. If you ignore that effect, you're down to like 200,000 subscribers - much less popular than EverQuest.

      Simply put, FFXI is like Lineage. It may be popular "someplace else" but it never was popular in America or Europe. It simply isn't effectively competeing in the market World of Warcraft is.

      By the way, it's been well known that Square intends to heavily enter the MMORPG market. Their PlayOnline service is basically an MMORPG subscription service, designed to give them a backend to run multiple MMORPGs at once. Hell, even FFXI contained a tech-demo of the service, Tetra Master (which, I'm please to say, I had to look up). They already have two more games planned on that service: Front Mission Online and Fantasy Earth. And, possibly, the Japanese release of EverQuest 2.

    3. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell modded this flamebait?

      Let's head over to our friend SirBruce's MMOGChart and take a peak at the subscriber chart. Hmm - comparing, I'd say Blizzard kicked Square's scrawny ass!

      But let's compare reviews, too.

      Final Fantasy XI - 8.2
      World of Warcraft - 9.5

      Hmm... I'd say World of Warcraft gave them a thorough trouncing, wouldn't you?

      Hell, I'm even being kind to it. It got 8.0 for the PS2 version and it's latest expansion got 6.8 (both platforms).

      I'd say, objectively, that Square got its ass handed to it.

    4. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by oGMo · · Score: 1

      Pfft. I played WoW for a few months, and now I'm back to FFXI. Why? It's hard to say... WoW is probably better for the casual player, and it's easier to do stuff, but there's not the same feeling of accomplishment. Lots of stuff is available to you immediately... but then things don't seem to open up as much, gameplay-wise, as you progress. And FFXI is far more polished.

      WoW is a nice diversion, but FFXI is where it's at, long-term, for me and many others.

      --

      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

    5. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      I can play online games for many more hours on the PS2. I can't do that on the PC since I am not on a couch. Simple things like that prevented me from trying Wow on the PC.

    6. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Bega · · Score: 1

      Me being a PC gamer, I didn't play FFXI PC for too long, because of the console-esque interface. For me, WoW feels much more polished, more rather than a console.

      --

      THIS IS THE INTERNET. PLEASE PICK UP YOUR SERIOUS BUSINESS SUIT AT THE FRONT COUNTER.
    7. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WOW... WoW got a review of 1 whole point higher?? Damn 8.2 must be really bad then... imagine what a 7.0 game would be? Is that Daikatana? Ok Sarcasim mode off now...

      Please... first off WoW has well over a year to better themselves from FFXI... I'd be shocked if they did'nt take people away from FFXI, just like I would have been shocked to see Star Wars Galaxies worse then Everquest 1. Ok So it was worse then Everquest 1 bad example.

      That isn't "getting it's ass handed to it" thats "coming out with a better game, when they had over a year to do so" Thats also called "good business practices"

      Fanboys really annoy me...

    8. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And FFXI is far more polished.

      Let's pretend that's true. FFXI is almost three years old at this point. This May, in two months, FFXI will have its third birthday. Here, take a look at this post. That lists all the things that FFXI has changed since launch. It's had almost three years to polish. WoW has had almost four months.

      I somehow expect that a three year old WoW will be far more polished than FFXI will be when it reachs the three year mark in May.

      But, hey, if you enjoy killing crabs for hours on end, enjoy you FFXI. I won't stop you. But I won't even pretend to understand why you'd like FFXI better than WoW.

    9. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW came out two and a half years after FFXI was released, actually. And I fully expect that if FFXI was compared with WoW today, it would get like a 7.0 or lower. Hey, wait, its expansion pack did! It got a 6.8.

      I love your math skills, too. WoW got over 1 point higher, or over 10% higher. Those scores are basically grades. WoW got an A. FFXI got a B-. That help you understand?

      Finally, you apparently didn't check out the chart. WoW didn't just "take players away" it totally annihilated FFXI's two-year figure. FFXI hit 500,000 people after two years. WoW hit that after - well, release. It then went on to more than double it in the next three months.

      Face it, no one except that small hard core of Square-Anuses (people who enjoy getting reamed by Square-Penix) like FFXI. It just isn't a fun game.

    10. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by falcon5768 · · Score: 1
      Funny I know a lot of people who left WoW for FFXI because WoW bored them to tears.

      I also know a lot of people who went to WoW because they just didnt want to work at a game and didnt like the idea of gratification not being instant.

      regardless of which WoW got its day in the sun, but it was over before it began. I know a huge number of people who after 2-3 months have left WoW because it got boring fast.

      Thats the problem with games that work like WoW if there is nothing there to hold them there, they wont stay. With FFXI there is stuff even JPs having been on for years still havent finished, and they add new lands every 2-3 months now.

      And as for NAs not being on FFXI, most servers contain more americans than japanese now, though if you come on at japanese peak times, there is more japanese. But there is easily 4000+ people on my server now on at any one time, there where only a little less than 3000 when i started and we already had a server migration where people left to go to a brand new server.

      Trust me there are well over 1 mill FFXI players. But instead of bragging, SE is actually doing what its supposed to be doing, providing content.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    11. Re:Haven't they already "looked to online play"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny I know a lot of people who left WoW for FFXI because WoW bored them to tears.

      Funny, I know just the opposite. There's a huge group of WoW players who left FFXI because mindlessly killing crabs got boring after the first 40 days of gameplay.

      But there is easily 4000+ people on my server now on at any one time, there where only a little less than 3000 when i started and we already had a server migration where people left to go to a brand new server.

      Really? There were 5000+ online when FFXI hit its peak subscriber numbers last year.

      Trust me there are well over 1 mill FFXI players.

      Trust me, there aren't. If there were, Square would have announced that. They announced 500,000 players before they released the census thingy.

      But instead of bragging, SE is actually doing what its supposed to be doing, providing content.

      Really? What new content have they provided recently? This? It's nice, but I don't think it'll make me play FFXI.

      All they've done recently is implement some new features, making FFXI into 21% the game WoW is instead of 20%. Yay, Square.

      What is it with Square fans showing up and posting crap to a story days after it's been posted? I never understand it. The story goes live, almost everyone agrees that Square has started to suck and that FFXI was a crappy game. Days later, Square fans show up and start posting crap, but no one cares, because the thread's dead at that point. I guess they can't stand to be proven wrong, so they just wait until after the thread is dead to post crap so they won't get a response. Well, tough. I'm responding, and you're wrong.

  4. Pay for Play is not sustainable by alexwcovington · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The amount of people willing to pay a monthly fee to play a game is not that large. Unless they are willing to make online games that have free servers - SquareEnix-run or not - they will be chasing after the same small pool as everyone else.
    I'd rather pay an extra $10 for faster internet ;)

    --
    (It's never too late to join the Renaissance)
    1. Re:Pay for Play is not sustainable by space_jake · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you but god damn near everyone (thats a gamer) I know pays to play a game online somewhere or other be it WoW, EQ2, or Xbox Live. I think you need to look at some numbers friend and try telling Blizzard that there isn't that many people interested in pay to play gaming. Its a huge market the only problem is that the life-span of a game is shorter with each new game that comes out the player base of your game will drop overtime.

    2. Re:Pay for Play is not sustainable by nightski · · Score: 1

      This comment is utterly ridiculous. Just because "you" wouldn't pay a subscription, doesn't mean others won't. Hell, WoW has $800,000 copies sold! Tell me that isn't a fairly large market. Let's say 200,000 are active subscribers at 15 a month - that is 1.5M per month in revenue! I subscribe to WoW and find the subscription model very good for the money. I spend 50 bucks on an Xbox or PS2 game only to receive max 50 hours enjoyment out of it. Plus, it is never upgraded (on xbox live, there are exceptions). To each his own, but I think there is tons of potential in the subscription market if the game is *good* - which is key. There are a lot of MMOs out there that just plain suck.

      --
      "Ideas without action are worthless."
    3. Re:Pay for Play is not sustainable by nightski · · Score: 1

      I have to apologize, when I wrote this I was very tired. It was 800,000 copies sold, not $800,000 :-) Also, 200,000 subscriptions at 15 a month would be 3M a month, not 1.5. Sorry.

      --
      "Ideas without action are worthless."
    4. Re:Pay for Play is not sustainable by KronusOverlord · · Score: 1

      ...Just get Guildwars. I mean, isn't that an MMO that doesn't have a monthly fee?

  5. Well... by computertheque · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If this is how they want to change their business structure, that's fine. It does seem strange that a company that has acquired much profit from offline games would make this decision.

    It just comes down to direction. Nintendo is trying something different, so it isn't too shocking that Square-Enix is as well. The most shocking thing that both are doing are turning away from proven forms of capital.

  6. A Nail in the Coffin? by Prien715 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Don't get me wrong, I like(d?) Square, but the creator of the Final Fantasy series recently left (as well as the composer). Moreso, it seems the series has been going downhill with each release past 7 (with respect to acclaim and sales) with the only bright spot being 10. What's more, they're releasing direct sequels now in a Disney-like effort to milk the characters for every cent they're worth (I'll set my copy of the Lion King 2 next to FFX2). The marketing department needs to be shot (FFT2 could have been a wonderful game if they were consistant with their audience; it had the plot simplicity and difficulty of an ages 5-7 game with an ability system that adults could've enjoyed (if the overall difficulty weren't so easy). Their target audience should've been the same people who bought the first one.)

    Both Disney and Square have the same fundamental ailment: profit-driven business models in a creative enterprise involving risk. You don't get critical acclaim or sales for repeating the same formula (except if you're Halo 2).

    --
    -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    1. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Taulin · · Score: 1

      I believe the creator of the FF series that went to MS, left Square back around FF 5 or 6. I do know he left before ff8. He didn't leave Square to go to MS, he just needed a job.

    2. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by rekenner · · Score: 1

      Wrong.
      Some quick searching didn't come up with the year he left, but I do remember that he worked on FF:The Spirits Within, which came out in 2001. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0173840/) FF8 came out in 1999. He left after 10, I believe.

    3. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6 is the last one he worked on.

      And the last one that's any good.

      Hmm...

    4. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      You can repeat formulas. Just look at "The Hero with a Thousand Faces." It's an excellent book on the underlying structure of basically every hero-driven book ever made.

      The problem is not that they're making sequals. Final Fantasy III was pretty close overall in spirit, plot, and characters to Final Fantasy II (US naming conventions). But what it had was years of time inbetween for people to get excited. They're making nothing but sequals now, and they're making them far too frequently. Every few years I can take a week to beat a Final Fantasy game, but if one comes out every month... what's the point? What's the "event?" On the one hand, like how Disney moved from a 3-year development cycle to a 2-year one, your quality will suffer because you're not taking enough time to do things right. On the other hand, your audience hasn't had enough time to really get worked into a frenzy about another one.

      Every game developer has a profit-driven business model in a creative enterprise involving risk. The problem with Square as I see it is that after The Spirits Within, they became cripplingly risk-averse. Before that they did Einhander, Brave Fencer Musashi, Bushido Blade, Ehrgeiz, Parasite Eve, Racing Lagoon, Tobal, and Xenogears. It made Action games, Racing games, Fighting games, Survival Horror... And every time they branched out into a new area they made a great game which helped redefine that genre. Since FFTSW, they've made nothing but RPG's, Sequals, and sequals to RPG's. The culture of creativity has really suffered from those golden days. They weren't releasing a Final Fantasy X2.5 every few weeks because they were busy making other types of games. Now they're so afraid of straying from known resources that they dillute their one property. Final Fantasy This - Final Fantasy That. It's sad to see, coming from the group that gave us some of the best moments and games on the Playstation, and whom some of us still remember fondly for Rad Racer and Thexder.

      BTW, it looks like Square is publishing Everquest II in Japan. Somehow that sounds fitting.

    5. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Prien715 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So there are insightful intelligent people on slashdot, who knew;) In other words, thank you for your intelligent reply.

      Campell's work deals with cultural reverse engineering: basically taking a bunch of works and analyzing them for commonality. The story-maker's role is the opposite. None of the great mystics or storytellers read Campell's work. They happened to make stories that followed his rubric quite unintentionally. Simply put, even if all great stories follow this formula, it's possible that anyone who attempts to follow the the formula intentionally fails.

      Thus, I find ambivalence in your 3rd paragraph. It is precisely through experimentation that great creative works are made. Companies like Pixar and Retro studios have been doing great things precisely because of their independence. For some reason, companies don't understand math. It's simply a better business strategy to produce riskier products if their average return is greater. They're too focused on optimizing the worst case of the small picture.

      I still want to pick up Square's previous games and have much more desire to play them than FFX2 (though Xenogears has the most repetitive battles known to man). Nintendo on the other hand, and maybe I'm going out on a limb, has managed to keep the most consistantly great/innovative games of any publisher for the longest period of time (from the original Mario to Animal Crossing; even their sequels try to do something different and novel. many people still consider Mario64 to be the first landmark 3D platformer just as Super Mario Bros was considered the first landmark 2D platformer).

      --
      -- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
    6. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't go to MS. He started Mistwalker, a 100% independent developer, who are working on Nintendo DS titles as well.

      Just read this post and its replies.

      See what you've done, Zonk? At least correct your mistakes so people like Taulin will get the story right!

    7. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Trepalium · · Score: 1
      (though Xenogears has the most repetitive battles known to man)
      I don't know, I think I found FFX more repetitive than Xenogears. Then again, I don't like the rock/paper/scissors aspect of the battle system in FFX, which is also one of the reasons I'm finding Xenosaga Ep.2 difficult to play. When I play an RPG, I tend to like using certain characters, and don't like being forced to use other characters by the game.

      On the other hand, I'm still not sure why I dislike FF9 so much. I don't believe there's anything that's wrong with the game, specifically. For some reason, the story just didn't appeal to me. Out of the entire series, it's the only one I can't stand to play. Even FF8 and FFX-2 are more enjoyable for me.

      --
      I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
    8. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by samdu · · Score: 1

      Actually, there was pretty strong demand for FFX2. And it wasn't exactly pumped out a couple of weeks after FFX. In addition, FFXII isn't due out for months still, and from all indications, the series is taking a dramatic departure gameplay-wise. To date, the only direct FF sequel is FFX2. True, there is a Kingdom Hearts sequel on the GB and another coming out for the PS2, but there was also fan interest in these, as well. The forthcoming "sequel" to FFVII is NOT an RPG, so though many fans would have liked to have seen an RPG sequel to FFVII, Square decided to go in a different direction. In short, Square has generally been giving the fans what they want, just not always in the form in which the fans expected. It's expected that when a company reaches a certain level of dominance in a field, there will be backlash against that company. Sometimes the backlash is warranted (Microsoft, EA) sometimes it's not. Thus far I haven't seen anything that warrants the backlash that Squenix is getting. However, if it's true that they're going in a mostly online direction, they'll lose a number of fans, myself included. I played FFXI for 9 months and if their future games are to be the endless level grinding fare that FFXI turned out to be, I won't be buying.

    9. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by samdu · · Score: 1

      Funny... I thought VII was the one everyone considered to be the masterpiece of the series.

    10. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, VII was the last playable one. It's the turning point. It's the last one that people enjoyed playing.

      VI is definitely considered the best Final Fantasy game created. VII was just OK. 8+ are all crap.

    11. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by cgenman · · Score: 1

      Very true. From the perspective of someone very close to what is going on, all of these games look different and have as different overtones as Final Fantasy 3 did from Mystic Quest. But to someone on the outside, you have an endless stream of Final Fantasy games. And the ones that aren't officially Final Fantasy titled are as close as one could possibly be in artistic style and gameplay. To someone on the outside, they're indiscernable.

      Kingdom Hearts was a great game, and I give Square total credit for making that. But again, it was a tremendously low-risk game in a genre that Square is known for. How could you go wrong with full rein over the Magic Kingdom?

      I don't think Square is getting a backlash because they're too successful. I think Square is disappointing people because what they were was revolutionary, something people got behind, and what they have become is a factory. Square used to be in the position that Blizzard is in today: they released games "when they were done," every release was a huge event that sold ridiculously well, every one was a gem. They tried new things and they did them amazingly well. Now imagine Blizzard starts selling Warcraft 4,5, and 6 in the span of 4 years. Heck, they release a Warcraft 4 2. They do a Warcraft 3 2 movie. Some of these are good, but none achieve the brilliance that Blizzard is known for. Of course there will be "backlash," because we know they are better than that. We know they still have creative people at their company that can create amazing original experiences, and we're trying to encourage them to branch out and do exactly that.

      Let Final Fantasy Die. You can summon Phoenix on it in 5 years.

    12. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, I'm still not sure why I dislike FF9 so much.

      I couldn't stand it either, and the following are my reasons:

      1. Lousy characters. I can't name any of them except for Vivi, who died in the end anyway. You never really got to see any of them grow and they were all really boring and cliched.

      2. Random classes for the characters. You mention "I don't like the rock/paper/scissors aspect of the battle system in FFX" - well, guess what: FFIX did basically the same thing, except you couldn't swap characters in and out.

      3. Poor character advancement. You gave characters abilities by equipping weapons and armor on them. WTF?! They did this again in FF:TA, and I can't stand it there, either. Other than by equiping various items on the characters, you could not choose their advancement at all.

      4. Lousy story. You basically were always too late to save anyone, so like half the world got destroyed and there was absolutely nothing you could do about it. All you ever did was make people's lives worse as you brought calmity to them, you almost never were a hero.

      Ultimately, though, the thing I hated the most about FFIX was that it was supposed to be "returning to the roots" of Final Fantasy or something and it just didn't succeed at that. I had hoped that it could rekindle the magic of FFVI, but - it just failed. So I hate it with a kind of burning hatred that it probably doesn't deserve, mostly for dissapointing me.

    13. Re:A Nail in the Coffin? by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Shit, the thing I hated most about FFX is that you had to rotate your entire party, for one turn each, into each battle, to allow for XP parity.

      Note to RPG developers: If you have more available chars than you have slots in your party, either assume that everybody's participating, and give the XP to everyone, or split the parties up and give them similar separate screen time. I seem to recall FFIX doing this, to some extent.

      Better yet, allow the out-of-party members who are just kicking around to provide (appropriate) modifiers to the people in the party. Auron's not in the combat? Assume he's standing off to the side guarding. Yuna's not in battle? Assume she's off to one side, healing. Or something.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  7. Stupid Idea..it's the reality TV of computer game by Red+Moose · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I'm sure in some MBA marketing exec's boardroom meetings the graphs show endless profits from adopting the "rental" method (pay per month of use). It's undoubedtly justified to expand global dot-com collaborations and network sharing expansion. And other marketing bollocks.

    What they are forgetting is that the lowest common denominator is the console - only a minority and that's a real definite minorirty but a *minority* none the less have or give a shit about online play

    I dont have FFXI, because I liked FF games due to the plot and story created and the playability which while not hard was entertaining and kept you going.

    The move to online-only games = the computer equivalent of reality TV. They don't need plots and people will kill each other (almost) to produce the content the developers don't need to anymore. The character interaction, etc., is what makes RPGs and l44t sk9i11z kids don't exactly imply adequate value.

    But it's $60 + $15/month. You might cancel after a few months, probably 3-4 I would guess is what the board of directors figures. This means up to $120, well worth it even with a smaller userbase.

    What a bunch of shit.

    --

    Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better

  8. Re:Stupid Idea..it's the reality TV of computer ga by samdu · · Score: 1

    Actually, FFXI has a pretty decent story. It's just a story that you can't gain access to if you try to go solo.

  9. Re:Stupid Idea..it's the reality TV of computer ga by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're wrong. Sorry, it's just - well, you're wrong.

    Here's the story:

    Evil Shadowlord creates tons of beastmen which attack the four nations on Vana'diel. A rag-tag team of adventurers (ie, you and five other morons playing the game) all gather together to defeat him.

    Tada.

    That's the story. Yay. In other words, it's pretty much exactly like FF, FFII, FFIII, FFIV, FFV, FFVI, FFVII, FFVIII, FFIX, and FFX in the generic story. Except far, far more cliched.

    Apparently the EXPANSION PACKS added more to the story. But FFXI's actual story sucked ass. And the expansion packs lock you out of the story until you're like level 60, which takes approximately 40 DAYS of gameplay to reach. Yes, 40 DAYS, as in 960 HOURS of gameplay. Of course, most people will take longer than that, as 40 days is basically rushing straight through.

    Fuck that, I'm not going to play FFXI for the "story" and I would highly suggest no one else should either. The story is bland and uninteresting, and the amount of effort required to reveal it simply isn't worth it. It's a waste of time and money. And it's the #1 reason I refuse to buy any other Square-Enix game again.

  10. Re:Stupid Idea..it's the reality TV of computer ga by oGMo · · Score: 1

    Hah, you think $60+$15/mo is expensive? It's not. I used to regularly buy 3-4+ games a month, that's at $40-50 a pop. Per month.

    Enter FFXI (or any MMO of your choice, really). Sure, I pay $50. After that I pay $15/mo. (With FFXI, it's $13/mo and $1 for each extra char, which becomes worth it if you get into the game.) But FFXI has enough content and I play it enough that I don't usually buy anything else.

    So, if it make Square more money, it saves me more money, so what's wrong with a win-win situation?

    As for the rest; FFXI actually has a quite intruiging story and world. Square doesn't let you down there by any means. The last expansion pack was almost exclusively story. But you will need to be committed to make it through; I don't contest that at all. World of Warcraft is a lot more accessible, especially for the casual player. However, after a couple months playing that (which was fun), I'm back to FFXI... simply because it's more compelling.

    --

    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage

  11. They've certainly already started moving this way by Kuukai · · Score: 1

    Pretty much since the two companies became one they've been trying to do this. They've put out plenty of betas in Japan trying to look for that winning genre combination. There's "Junkmetal", which is an MMO mech-based FPS, and "Shisso, Yankee Tamashii.", a more original MMO where you play as a Japanese highschool delinquent. There's not really that much you can do with the MMO model, though, but they don't seem to get that...

    --
    Sendou Wave Kick!!