Did Ff16 Flop?

I havent touched Kairos Gate yet, but the DLC story seemed shorter than Echoes. Kairos Gate just seems to be battlefields.

Checked out Kairos Gate while I was doing some cardio, and I'm 100% not interested in it. Its a 20 floor battlefield rush. You die, you start over (kinda harsh). You leave, you start over (not ok).

I'd be rather miffed if I spent over an hour working to floor 20 just to lose, then have to start over from scratch. Even worse if my PS5 in a paused state happened to shut down (or worse, ran a patch and restarted everything) and made me start over.

What's annoying to me is people refuse to let Square learn a lesson and defend them no matter how stupid they become.

ff15 was a flop, I don't care how many copies they sold they threw money at advertising and lost way more money than they made back. People hated it mainly cause there was no female party member in the game. A FF game, actually near any JRPG with no female party member? what were they even thinking? Yes most people who play these games have specific demands, and you better give them what they want.

ff16 was a flop (it destroyed the stock price) because it took a franchise that is built off its own lore and world and laid GoT over it. I don't care how much of a fan Yoshida is of GoT, you just don't do that. It's actually offensive to take something so venerated and just copy and paste.

ff7r is problematic because it's bloated out to justify being split into 3, and because the story changes are laughably stupid. Someone on deviant art could of done a better job at changing the story.

They should learn the very simple lessons from these mistakes, so they don't do them again.

There is a difference between being a fan and being a toxic fan, that defends anything they do cause just cause of the brand on the box.

for this fan all 3 were flops because i couldn't play them on release on a pc - doesn't get simpler than that.

The main reason they don't release on PC at the same time is they know people will buy it twice, they do that on purpose. Rockstar do the same thing.

Well the main reason is they got bribed.

But some will buy it twice for sure.

To take a page out of Eiryl's advice book; if people stop buying it on PS5 and then PC, they'll stop delaying PC releases. Too many people willingly buy console games, so they'll never have any reason to stop selling them. Of course you'll buy it again on PC, because PC is objectively better.

Money is the only thing that matters, so short of regulation we're going to see the same *** console exclusivity for the foreseeable future.

Haven't bought a console since PS3. But that's not what the majority do.

Companies could care less if a minority refuse to buy consoles or console exclusive games. As long as they make more money than the alternative.

Back when Xbox 360 was getting more exclusive JRPGs, I realized Japanese people always waited because they refused to buy an Xbox 360 just for that. Only took them a year to finally play on a console they preferred. Currently, PC is the king of JRPG.

Exclusive only applied to locking out Xbox, even without that deal they still would not have released it on pc at the same time.

That was not a bribe, it was a sweet deal.

wat

Ok guys we need to stop letting RA out of his playpen. He is going off on wild tangents again.

Yes, PC has all numbered Final Fantasy games (FF16 and FF7R2 are coming) while you console peasants don't have one is FFXI!

JK, I have way too many games on my PC thanks to Humble Bundle, I guess. There is literally no reason for me to be so excited about any new upcoming game anymore. I feel old.

What's cool about having a PC is you can play pretty much everything since 1977. You don't have to buy the same game over and over on a different platform.

Wow, people seriously get mad at other players purchase a game that they don't like?(Or purchase games on a console that they don't like?)


Stop being mad guys!

Edit: current console exclusively situation is WAY better than 1990 to 2010 (snes-ps1-ps2 era). I don't know why people are complaining this hard even though the situation improved a whole lot in the last 10 years. Give those companies time to adjust current player preference and PC market needs.


And why would you care? If square made money good for their employees and shareholders. If they don't then move on and play a different game. It is not like all the games in the world will be gone in the world if SE die now.

Did square paid you to educate them or something? >.>

I think the current trend IS moving away from console exclusive games. Phil Spencer said so himself.

However Sony has been highly successfully in ps1-ps2 era with their console exclusive strategy. It is understandable that they needed more time to move away from past successful strategy that worked very well back then.

There is also significant amount of Sony fans who want their games to be ps5 only so their console purchase felt worth it. Sony will need to take care of their fan's need too.

Imo current situation is already a good balance between every group's need imo. At least better than 90s-2000.

The only acceptable balance is a transition toward consoles as a lower cost of entry to PC gaming. They already use comparable CPU and GPUs, using an entirely different software architecture is an enormous waste of human labor and rabidly anti-consumer.
Something like an improved SteamOS is the future. Enough library support to run modern windows games without all the bloat of a full windows installation. Console players get the same sort of experience they would on a dedicated console, but if you already own a high end PC you don't have to shell out for 4 copies of same-gen hardware to toss in storage 6 years later.

Sony and Nintendo obviously wouldn't like this, because having consoles allows them to charge fees to game producers to sell the games on their consoles. They can't compete with MS or Steam in a fair market, so hoarding IP contracts and pushing exclusivity while selling consoles at a borderline loss is the only way they stay relevant.

Personally, I am not a fan of monopoly and the idea of Steam dominating the whole market scared me lol. Even though Steam's reputation is generally positive, who knows what they'd become once they dominate the whole market.

I would rather see 2-3 platforms competing with each other than seeing one mega platform dominate the whole market. Otherwise it is not healthy like this imo.

If people feel ps5/switch price isn't worth it, I would rather see they add some specialized hardware related perks than just letting them both die.

Switch has portable form factor, but hardware quality is horrible for price. If you can't use a full laptop, has some vague argument in favor of it, but price performance ratio is still very poor. PS5 is just a worse PC, you can get small form factor cases that are similar in volume with a better shape, and specs can be much higher.

What sort of specialized hardware related perks would make consoles competitive again? Right now, the primary reason they are appealing to anyone is because the console sellers are subsidizing part of the hardware cost and making it back in licensing fees on your games that eventually make it back to consumer.

PS5 is plug and play for consumers and has some great exclusives.

This is what developing a better SteamOS would aim to accomplish.

This is a reason to buy a PS5 in the current market, it's not a reason for PS5 to exist.

I don't think it affects the price that much tbh. Epic has the lowest fee(12%) and game price remains the same as Steam. PSN and Nintendo storefront has same cut as Steam and they even lower the dev kit price compare with a few generations ago.

If you see console games are more expensive than Steam games, that is probably because console gamers are willing to pay more, and less competition in the console market. So publishers have more room to increase the price. Supply and demand. If all players play games on Steam instead of switch then Nintendo wouldn't be able to increase game price. But that is obviously not the case.

On top of that Sony also paid for some games for exclusivity, such as FF16. Wouldn't be surprised if they are willing to negotiate for lower cut for blockbuster IP too. That is actually good for the market because games can be made cheaper, therefore more games are being made for the customers to choose from.

It is not like PC gamers lose anything. They can still play the game after an year. It is not a big deal.

It may not be the most ideal situation for PC only gamers because they have to wait, but it benefits every party at least.


I do like to play games on consoles. There are less controller problems, program errors or optimization problems on consoles from my experience, and I don't have to worry about some random small games that I downloaded has security problems or something (probably rare on Steam but still...).

I only have 1 PC for work and I prefer not to use it to play games so I can focus at work. Console is a good separation between work and play imo.

I'd presume its easier to develop and optimize a video game when the hardware its running on is the same for everyone.

You nerds should try actually playing a game

Develop, no. Optimize, not really. Development may or may not be easier for consoles depending on the rendering pipeline provided by the OS, but that's a software thing not a hardware thing. It's harder long run for anything that will be eventually ported, because design choices need to be made that allow for that to be smoothly done. If something will never be ported to PC, then there is some argument about it being easier, but that's mostly a Nintendo-only thing these days.

What is easier is creating a benchmark for expected performance and releasing something that's poorly optimized and will run 'good enough' for everyone. In PS5's case, that means they have a lot of games running at 1440p + upscale, and sub-120 FPS (or if you look at ff16 and other graphically demanding games.. sub-60 even in performance mode). Further, since game developers often have to target last gen or weaker consoles as well (PS4, Xbox Model S), that means even the people with the better console may receive a worse product than they would've in an environment without consoles running unique software.

Undoubtedly, the best product for everyone is going to be the one designed to properly scale with hardware and be stable, not the one relying on specific console OS tweaks to hit acceptable performance.

The argument about stability is commonly heard, but modern console games are running similar engines on similar hardware and much of the same instability happens. Any sufficiently advanced game has bugs on release, often bugs every reasonable playthrough would experience.. this is because game developers have decided it's more cost effective to do early release or outright release a buggy product and then rush through patches for the first month than pay for extensive QA and playtesting.

Keep in mind, any work going toward porting between platforms and enabling cross-platform compatibility could be put toward stability. From a labor:output perspective, you're not getting a better product by creating console games. It's solely a marketing technique to allow the console developers to operate their own marketplaces and take a cut of sales. The user is not winning here.

Argument about security is irrelevant. If the alternative is a 'console' that uses the same rendering pipeline and APIs as a windows PC, to allow games to be innately cross-platform, you don't have to have anything that's a security risk on it. Someone who wants to use their existing PC has options for that, too.. you can run a second OS install just for gaming and encrypt your drive.

From a user standpoint, it would be basically the same to buy a steambox with a similar form factor, UI, and controllers. The only thing that would need to change is getting rid of proprietary rendering nonsense so that games don't have to be released in 4 different forms. And, like I've said, the reason that won't happen is because the console creators are using it as a profit extraction tool.. there is zero benefit to the consumer.

I have experienced PC only capability problems from games. Case to the point, just last year I played a game on Steam that graphics won't render at all. Took me an hour to Google for the solution and changed the graphic card settings to render graphics correctly.

It is not even a game in early access, it was out for years.

This kind of capability issue has never occurred on consoles for me. Some console games may freeze if it is not optimized, or bugs can happen if QA isn't well done. But graphics won't render at all on console? Never happened to me at least.


But that's still extra time investment to setup.

To me console is just easy and works out of the box most of the time. It does one thing and one thing only: play games. You put your disk in and it works so I don't need to worry about other things like "what setting should I use?" or "what graphic card should I use?".

I get that more tech oriented person may find PC better because they have better ability to solve problems. Not me though, I am lazy.

And that makes the lazy me the perfect target audience for consoles.

The issue is that this model isn't mutually exclusive with getting rid of console exclusivity and unique rendering pipelines. I have a small form factor PC sitting in my TV stand. I turn it on with a remote control. Steam big picture loads on the TV. I use the same xbox elite controller to select a game that an xbox player would use. The game loads, and I play it. When I'm done, I hit the xbox button to pull up steam menu and choose 'power off machine' and the computer turns off(or go to standby and it can be woken back up by the controller). This isn't meaningfully different than using my PS5 or Switch.

Like you said, configuration is the downside. But, you can't make a reasonable argument that developing an entirely seperate OS, creating a unique hardware form factor, adding intermediate layers to support common engines, creating your software UI, and porting your games to 2-4 platforms is less labor cost than streamlining steamOS or branching linux yourself to create a similarly stable and easy-to-use environment on PC hardware.

With the right incentives, you could have a gaming machine that's indistinguishable from current consoles to the user besides getting rid of exclusives and reducing the amount of ongoing developer effort. The issue isn't that it can't be done or it's more technologically challenging than the current situation, it's that there's no incentive to work toward it when they can use the consoles as a means to force you into their shop and sell the same game twice.

https://www.ign.com/articles/are-final-fantasy-7-rebirth-sales-struggling-we-asked-the-experts

encouraging downward trend

Hence I said it benefits all parties instead of just one.

Ps5/switch fanboys get to pay more and "feel good", game dev gets to sell the same game twice and get free money from Sony bribing them. Die hard fans of a game gets to buy every version to support the dev and feel good while dev make money. PC only users still gets their ps5 games if they wait (and CHEAP games during steam sales). Tech dummies like me don't need to deal with PC. Physical game collectors still get to collect their game disks because console market still existed. Game dev gets 3 storefront to choose from instead of just 1, physical game stores can continue to exist and don't have to shut down, hardware manufacturers gets more business etc...

Unless waiting is a big deal to PC players this seems like a situation that everybody gets a bit of something that they wanted.

You want a total industry change from what it was in 1990-2000 because "theorically efficiency". But I am personally fine with current situation because more people involved in the entire supply chain gets their benefit. It is already less exclusive than 1990-2000, and yet it still leaves some benefits for different parties in the whole thing .

My game is building walls of texts

git gud