Gambit2483
Member
They have most likely already started moving 75% of their projects towards Switch 2 development, including FF7R and Dragon Quest 12Getting either game to run on Switch 1 would be a challenge.
They have most likely already started moving 75% of their projects towards Switch 2 development, including FF7R and Dragon Quest 12Getting either game to run on Switch 1 would be a challenge.
Getting either game to run on Switch 1 would be a challenge.
I’ve been saying this for some time. It’s definitely a generationunal thing. Most gen X and younger have much shorter attention spans so the idea of them playing a 20+ hour AAA game let alone a 60 hour RPG…. Let alone a turn based JRPG….. that is probably even longer…just ain’t their thing.
So design the game around parameters that would allow them to run on the Switch. This isn’t rocket science, just basic business common sense they abandoned chasing? What exactly, gaming street cred?Getting either game to run on Switch 1 would be a challenge.
You know more than I do. I tried many jobs since 2006. I would say 11 different jobs on my resume.
I applied for so many places that it was hard to get a job. I had to take what they had.
Here are some of my jobs
2006 sea world $5.95 an hour
2008 movie theater $6.50
2014 home depot $8
2022 $12
2023 $14
The most I have ever gotten is $14 an hour and that is on the high side in my city.
It was unaffordable when apartment rent was close to $2000 at most places around.
if they set the minimum federal wage to $20 it would help alot of people.
If I worked full time at say $14 . I'd get around 2k a month. Apartment rent is $1700 so I'm supposed to live off of $300?
That is why wages are messed up.
The first thought was making and selling great games... now they are all chasing that single one cash cow that the mindless gaas zombies can consume forever.. and stay in the maximum profit minimum effort zone.their numbers say that people have been infected by the GaaS virus; mindless time sinkers that have hijacked an entire industry.
They already raised it to $20 for all California fast food workers. Aside from upset mcdonalds managers. I don't see a disaster.The federal minimum wage should definitely go up a bit( to $9 or $10 dollars) because it hasn't done so in 15 years I believe. However, going from $7.25 to $20 would create disaster in a number of states. I believe even the most generous states are usually in the $15 to $17 range while most are in the $7.25 to $12 range.
They already raised it to $20 for all California fast food workers. Aside from upset mcdonalds managers. I don't see a disaster.
If they won't do that then lower apartment rent to affordable prices.
What is a disaster is people not being afford a place to live and food to eat. Something already being done at current wages. Starvation and homelessness is at an all time high.
Millions of pharmacists get $75+ an hour. Where is the disasters?
Amazon raised warehouse wages to $15 an hour 5 years ago. Today, half of workers surveyed told researchers they struggle to afford food or rent
Amazon has long been criticized for its treatment of employees, especially those who pack and ship boxes in its warehouses.fortune.com
Millions of families live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford basic necessities like housing and health care
Can't Afford the Basics? The High Cost of Living Is About Way More Than Inflation
Everything is expensive. Experts tell us why.www.cnet.com
So what is your solution to the millions of Americans who can't afford basic necessities ?Not sure why pharmacists are being brought up here. They went to school to acquire a skill that those giving you a burger at a drive-thru don't have.
Yes, sudden massive increase from 7.25 to $20 in minimum wage for what are supposed to be entry level jobs would create disasters in many states. (Particularly poorer ones). Many small retail businesses would either have to jack up prices at an insane level or reduce staff significantly. Would greatly hasten AI doing those entry level jobs at fast food places I assume though.
They have most likely already started moving 75% of their projects towards Switch 2 development, including FF7R and Dragon Quest 12
Something tells me Nintendo has already made sure it will be powerful enough to run some games that are releasing on PS5 (albeit with compromises of course). Especially Japanese based games that aren't exactly pushing the graphical boundaries like ATLUS games.Oh for sure. The thing is that up to now, the PS5 has sold very well. The install base should not be a problem.
Part 1 sold poorly on PC and Part 2 won't even do anywhere close to Part 1 if they bother. Getting it to work on PS4 would be a lot of work, so really the only other viable platform is Switch 2.
I don't think Part 3 will end up being cancelled, but only because of the asset reuse.
That's not it. Persona, Tales of, anime-like aesthetics do sell. The fact is that FF is an hybrid of high fidelity ($$$$) with anime aesthetics, pleasing fans but not really enlarging it user base. It's selling marginally better than a Tales of while costing 3-4 times as much. Square thought VII was the evergreen and it is, but it is 30 years too late and even marketing was totally pandering OG fans ("look! the 3d brawler from the coliseum!"). The idea for a 3 part remake is a dream for fans (and even then....) but a logistic nightmare for a development-marketing pov. Too many bets are not paying off in the end. Part 3 will be developed and they're probably hoping to have the trilogy be a long seller but that's pretty much it for FF Remakes imho.The answer for FF's woes is simple (IMO):
post FFVIII, the series lost a huge chunk of its audience because all of the games became far too anime replete with annoying writing and tropes. There is simply a large contingent of gamers who aren't going to play anything anime period.
The people who "aren't going to play anything anime period" were likely never playing FF to begin with because it was definitely seen as an "anime game". They were playing wRPGs.The answer for FF's woes is simple (IMO):
post FFVIII, the series lost a huge chunk of its audience because all of the games became far too anime replete with annoying writing and tropes. There is simply a large contingent of gamers who aren't going to play anything anime period.
The answer for FF's woes is simple (IMO):
post FFVIII, the series lost a huge chunk of its audience because all of the games became far too anime replete with annoying writing and tropes. There is simply a large contingent of gamers who aren't going to play anything anime period.
What a completely stupid and false thing to say:
“Navok noted that if a game costs $100 million to make over five years, it has to beat what the company could have returned investing a similar amount in the stock market over the same period. “For the 5 years prior to Feb 2024, the stock market averaged a rate of return of 14.5%. Investing that $100m in the stock market would net you a return of $201m, so this is our ROI baseline,” he explained.”
Why the hell does a game need to outperform the stock market in order to get funding and be seen as a success?
The stock market's potential between now and 2029 is unknowable. What if there's a global crash in the markets over the next 5 years?
Higher risk.
So is any given game's performance, yet any investment decision captures this by projecting future cash flows and applying discount rates to them.
Applying this logic to a billionaire group buying a sports team would be equally STUPID! So freaking dumb that maybe we humans need to nuke ourselves to death and have a start over period.
What billionaire or group of investors would want to buy a sports franchise and then immediately say it needs to make 14.5% annualized profits a year or it was a failure?
Something tells me Nintendo has already made sure it will be powerful enough to run some games that are releasing on PS5 (albeit with compromises of course).
Sports teams have outsized returns and thus people invest in them. Just like people will invest in video games if they outperform other asset classes on a risk-adjusted basis.
Novak: "...platforms will generally get a recoup on any funds spent on exclusivity meaning until they are paid back, they will keep that cash..."
An interesting point that Novak brings up and what I think many people don't know is that moneyhats ARE recouped. They're not just free money for Square Enix on top of whatever the game earns.
Say Sony offers Square Enix $200m to keep FF7 exclusive to Playstation. Sony then takes 100% of all revenue generated from FF7's game's sales UNTIL Sony gets back their initial $200m. After which, earnings are distributed as normal.
Another example was Epic's lauded publishing deal. See one of the terms, which reads : "...Once costs are recouped, developers earn at least 50% of all profits."
Lastly, I'll add my own experience as an indie developer. I took a minimum guarantee up front of from my publisher and agreed to a 50/50 split of the proceeds. I didn't realize minimum guarantee would be recouped (since it was my first release). It sucked balls learning that I'd get nothing from game sales for a while. In my case, the publisher recouped 2x the minimum guarantee amount - their logic was that our split was 50/50. So since I had received $X, they started at -$X. Therefore, they had to earn $2X before earnings could be distributed. Felt like double-dipping to me.
Recoupment is standard industry practice. So, another way to look at them is that they're "money that you'd have earned anyway, but you get it a bit earlier". In that lens, there's absolutely no motivation to take an exclusivity deal - going multiplatform earns you MUCH more money. The only reason you'd take it is if you think the game is going to bomb, and you'd have more money from the money hat.
They might try to get developers to take advantage of DLSS technology to help improve frameratesThey should be able to make both Rebirth and FF16 work on Switch 2 albeit at 1080p30 most likely.
Novak: "...platforms will generally get a recoup on any funds spent on exclusivity meaning until they are paid back, they will keep that cash..."
An interesting point that Novak brings up and what I think many people don't know is that moneyhats ARE recouped. They're not just free money for Square Enix on top of whatever the game earns.
Say Sony offers Square Enix $200m to keep FF7 exclusive to Playstation. Sony then takes 100% of all revenue generated from FF7's game's sales UNTIL Sony gets back their initial $200m. After which, earnings are distributed as normal.
Another example was Epic's lauded publishing deal. See one of the terms, which reads : "...Once costs are recouped, developers earn at least 50% of all profits."
Lastly, I'll add my own experience as an indie developer. I took a minimum guarantee up front of from my publisher and agreed to a 50/50 split of the proceeds. I didn't realize minimum guarantee would be recouped (since it was my first release). It sucked balls learning that I'd get nothing from game sales for a while. In my case, the publisher recouped 2x the minimum guarantee amount - their logic was that our split was 50/50. So since I had received $X, they started at -$X. Therefore, they had to earn $2X before earnings could be distributed. Felt like double-dipping to me.
Recoupment is standard industry practice. So, another way to look at them is that they're "money that you'd have earned anyway, but you get it a bit earlier". In that lens, there's absolutely no motivation to take an exclusivity deal - going multiplatform earns you MUCH more money. The only reason you'd take it is if you think the game is going to bomb, and you'd have more money from the money hat.
Final Fantasy XV sold over 10 million. There’s still a big audience for these games provided they make something gamers actually want and release it on all platforms.
16 is like a Rorschach test. Everyone blames its poor sales on different things depending on their own biases. If you loved 16, then the poor sales were because 15 ruined the series’ reputation. If you’re the type who thinks every post-PS2 FF is a disappointment, then the poor sales were because 16 abandoned the series identity.I know they got off a lot of 15. What's the verdict on 16, though? 15 was a long time ago and I think responsible for muddying the name a bit.
Agreed, Nier is just outside of Mainstream. That's what makes me think their next game will indeed be Nier. I mean, they made an actual anime of Nier Automata...FF16 is a Final Fantasy game only by name. It's all about identity loss.
Square turned their most iconic game into a whole saga only because they have lost their way with the franchise, unlike Nintendo with Zelda.
Now Nier is becoming popular (bordering mainstream) but they haven't figured out what to do with that one, too. Yoko Taro sounded frustrated in the joint interview with Shift Up's CEO. Square's management sucks.
FF16 is a Final Fantasy game only by name. It's all about identity loss.
Square turned their most iconic game into a whole saga only because they have lost their way with the franchise, unlike Nintendo with Zelda.
Now Nier is becoming popular (bordering mainstream) but they haven't figured out what to do with that one, too. Yoko Taro sounded frustrated in the joint interview with Shift Up's CEO. Square's management sucks.