Support NeoGAF

[Pureauthor]

for the 4th version of a game, they get faaaaar more sales than they should have gotten.

If SE is dissapointed, at all, then they truly suck at sales expectations.

Whether or not they suck at sales expectations isn't the point. Given the amount of effort poured into FFIVDS (certainly more than FFIIIDS), it's a safe assumption that they did desire more sales out of this game. Thus, it's not performing as well as it could be.

 

[Moor-Angol]

And are there any big releases for PS3 in the near future that can offset GC's bump?

yes

winter holidays 2008

 

[sphinx]

Some market analysts (Enterbrain) did expect it to sell over 1M, slightly better than FF3.

On what basis????

on the basis of a higher budget and "general DS excitement" ?? Nonsense

the DS and its monstrous software performance has made us all irrational. Before the DS arrived, it was a fucking miracle to sell 400k copies of your game on any system, no matter budgets, original IPs or ports or whatever.

Now SE is shedding tears because their poor game will only sell 700-800k in its lifetime?

give me a break.

 

[Frillen]

Whether or not they suck at sales expectations isn't the point. Given the amount of effort poured into FFIVDS (certainly more than FFIIIDS), it's a safe assumption that they did desire more sales out of this game. Thus, it's not performing as well as it could be.

Just because they put more effort into FFIV compared to FFIII doesn't mean they expect FFIV to outsell FFIII.

- The GBA version was released just freakin 2 years ago (?)
- There's been a FF release galore this year
- It came out 2 weeks after DQIV.

I'm pretty sure Square are happy with FFIV's performance.

 

[Xeke]

Whether or not they suck at sales expectations isn't the point. Given the amount of effort poured into FFIVDS (certainly more than FFIIIDS), it's a safe assumption that they did desire more sales out of this game. Thus, it's not performing as well as it could be.

But the engine already existed because of III.

 

[Moor-Angol]

- The GBA version was released just freakin 2 years ago (?) and was released after Wonderswan version, which was released after PS1 version, which was released after original Super Famicom version

fixed

 

[Galactic Fork]

Whether or not they suck at sales expectations isn't the point. Given the amount of effort poured into FFIVDS (certainly more than FFIIIDS), it's a safe assumption that they did desire more sales out of this game. Thus, it's not performing as well as it could be.

The most extra effort is the voice acting. The writing is the same in FFIV except for the thought bubbles of the characters (from what i've read, sorry if that's way off basis) , FFIII expanded and changed the story quite a bit. FFIII also had the creation of a new 3d engine for the DS, which FFIV used.

So where exactly is all the extra effort over FFIII?

 

[Pureauthor]

The most extra effort is the voice acting. The writing is the same in FFIV except for the thought bubbles of the characters (from what i've read, sorry if that's way off basis) , FFIII expanded and changed the story quite a bit. FFIII also had the creation of a new 3d engine for the DS, which FFIV used.

So where exactly is all the extra effort over FFIII?

The um, decant ability system, the redesigned difficulty, the changes to individual skills, the extremely well cheoreographed cutscenes (according to duckroll), the VA, the new scenarios and the FMVs. That's where the extra effort is.

 

[JJConrad]

Whether or not they suck at sales expectations isn't the point. Given the amount of effort poured into FFIVDS (certainly more than FFIIIDS), it's a safe assumption that they did desire more sales out of this game. Thus, it's not performing as well as it could be.

I'm wondering where this idea that S-E put more effort into FF4 came from. Has budget information actually been released or discussed by S-E? Or is this just based on the presence of VA? I'm finding it difficult to believe that they actually did put more effort into 4 considering they announced and released the game in 8 months (15 months after 3 was released), whereas 3 was announced 22 months before it was released.

FF4 went from 200k behind FF3 after 1 week, to 75k behind FF3 after 3 weeks. Why do we have to keep arguing over it?

 

[Rolf NB]

What major bump is GC getting?

And are there any big releases for PS3 in the near future that can offset GC's bump?

The graph is launch-aligned, and Gamecube launched earlier in the year.
Its first holiday was much more successful, and that's why it tracks ahead of the PS3 up until now, but overall the second years of the PS3 and the Gamecube are pretty much equal.

What I'm watching for now (or rather next week) is how sharp the drop is, when the holiday sales period is over. Between the historic sales of the PS2 and the Gamecube, there's a very clear distinction between the successful and the failing system, in that the PS2 kept above a third of its peak sales one week later, and kept between a fifth and a third one month later. The Gamecube on the other hand dropped sharply, immediately to a quarter, and then to just a tenth one month later.

The hypothesis is that there is potential for the PS3 to follow the successful pattern if its demand is gated by price, and not by its attractiveness. It is after all a much more expensive system than the Gamecube, and it is not so clear yet that we should expect the patterns to match forever.

 

[Kurosaki Ichigo]

I just checked S and M predictions (Enterbrain analysts) and wow, overestimate much. I'll also add K ones (me :lol).
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8270218

Final Fantasy IV - S: 1,200,000 M: 1,000,000 K: 850.000
Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Fuketsu no Grimoire - S: 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 450.000
Mario Party DS: S: 1,000,000 M: 1,200,000 K: 650.000
Minna no Golf Portable 2 - S: 500,000 - 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 400.000
Shin Sangoku Musou 5 - S: 300,000 M: 300,000 K: 250.000
World Soccer Winning Eleven 2008 - S: 900,000 - 1,000,000 K: 700.000
SD Gundam Generation Spirits - S: 400,000 - 500,000 M: 300,000 K: 250.000
Super Robot Wars OG Gaiden - S: 400,000 - 500,000 M: 300,000 K: 150.000
Super Mario Galaxy - S: 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 M: 1,000,000+ K: 1.500.000
Biohazard Umbrella Chronicles - S: 500,000 - 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 150.000
Wii Fit - S: 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 M: 1,500,000+ K: 1.250.000
Lost Odyssey - S: 200,000 - 300,000 K: 200.000
Ace Combat 6 - S: 100,000 - 150,000 K: 75.000
NiGHTS - ?: 200,000 K: 150,000
Dragon Quest IV - ?: 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 K: 1,200,000
Tales of Innocent - ?: 200,000 K: 200,000
GT5P - ?: 800,000 - 1,000,000 K: 300,000

(in bold, the best prediction )

 

[Galactic Fork]

The um, decant ability system, the redesigned difficulty, the changes to individual skills, the extremely well cheoreographed cutscenes (according to duckroll), the VA, the new scenarios and the FMVs. That's where the extra effort is.

Over FFIII? FFIII had cutscenes and FMV, ballancing, difficulty changes, new jobs and skills. I already pointed out the VA was special in FFIV

 

[Pureauthor]

Over FFIII? FFIII had cutscenes and FMV, ballancing, difficulty changes, new jobs and skills. I already pointed out the VA was special in FFIV

There was very little balancing and difficulty change in FFIII. There were less enemies onscreen (3vs8) and they boosted the hitpoints to compensate. Certainly nothing like what they've done with FFIVDS.

Also, there was one new job - the Freelancer class, which no one uses after 2 hours in because it's the class you start in. And it most certainly didn't drain much effort since it's a reskinned Onion Knight.

 

[Shiggy]

Don't we get rough Famitsu numbers today?

 

[schuelma]

Don't we get rough Famitsu numbers today?

Look earlier in the thread

 

[Shiggy]

Look earlier in the thread

Sorry, didn't expect them to be so early in a MC thread

 

[yankeeforever2]

Sorry, didn't expect them to be so early in a MC thread

Well this is last weeks MC, there will be another thread for this weeks later today.

 

[charlequin]

Uh, it won't change anything he said, which was that FF4 is tracking behind FF3 despite the appearance of a higher budget and ethel's assumed expectation that SE would want it to beat FF3.

Yup. FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII was, thus far; it unambiguously cost more to make and its current sales indicate that it will make less profit. It's ambiguous whether these numbers are still good enough that future DS remakes would still be considered worthwhile investments from S-E, but they're not actively good.

I mean, seriously, let's say the reasons listed in this thread for FFIV's performance are accurate: that would imply that FFVr would put up something like 550k lifetime.

That wasn't about dumb customers. FF IIIr just wasn't all that good and well might have made those who bought it skeptic of its direct sequel.

The fact that you couldn't beat FF3 is not actually reflective of the general reception the game got. :lol It reviewed well, had a generally positive reaction from Japanese gamers, and indications point to it receiving good word-of-mouth (based on the unusually long period over which it sold.) It's almost certain this was not a factor in FFIV's performance. (Certainly not compared to the possible overall tarnishing of the FF brand by crummy spinoffs.)

the DS and its monstrous software performance has made us all irrational. Before the DS arrived, it was a fucking miracle to sell 400k copies of your game on any system, no matter budgets, original IPs or ports or whatever.

It's a core series Final Fantasy title. Full remakes (i.e. with graphical upgrades and new content, like FFIVr) of the Dragon Quest games have always sold in the neighborhood of 1m copies, and the first such remake of an FF did as well. It's certainly not "irrational DS exuberance" that could lead someone to expect such performance from this title.

Just because they put more effort into FFIV compared to FFIII doesn't mean they expect FFIV to outsell FFIII.

Errr... yes it does. Otherwise: why not put in the same amount of effort? I don't think anyone would have complained about an FFIVr that was as much of an upgrade as FFIII was, with no voice acting or image song; the only reason to go the extra mile is to send the signal that this edition is "the real deal" and thereby motivate more people to pick it up.

I really think the biggest contributor to this is FF brand fatigue; we've already seen evidence of it in other titles (like FFTA2). S-E's best response would probably be to majorly scale back the spinoffs and give a little longer (2 years, maybe?) for FFVr, but... I don't think they'll really consider the value of the brand equity "Final Fantasy" built up until it's too late to salvage it, sad to say.

 

[Rolf NB]

The fact that you couldn't beat FF3 is not actually reflective of the general reception the game got. :lol

You have really shitty memory.

 

[ethelred]

FF IIIr just wasn't all that good and well might have made those who bought it skeptic of its direct sequel. I know FF IV is a good game, because I've already played the GBA version, but if I only knew FF IIIr? There's no way I'd spend money for FF IVr then. Maybe someone in Japan is a little like me.

I know this might be hard to accept, but the odds are most people genuinely liked FFIIIr. It's really hard to see the game selling a whopping 500,000 copies over the span of months without being buoyed by very positive word of mouth. This isn't a situation like Dirge where strong opening sales plumetted after people got their hands on the game.



With regards to "effort," none of us know the budgeting for these two games. Sure, 3 established the engine while 4 built off that with improved visuals, voice acting, a lot more unique art assets, and a stronger marketing campaign. Still, we don't know the costs. I think it's unarguable 4 had more *effort*, though. A lot of higher profile internal Square personnel (such as Ito, Tokita, Nakano, and the storyboarding team) were assigned to make the game, and they were involved to a much greater effort than Tanaka and Yoshida were in 3.

 

[jgwhiteus]

Hasn't this FFIVr discussion been in the last two MC threads as well? (Along with the "why don't PSP games sell? Piracy or multimedia capabilities?" discussion).

But to repeat some points:

Yup. FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII was, thus far; it unambiguously cost more to make

Are we sure it "unambiguously" cost more to make? Yes, it has VA (which isn't necessarily that expensive, other DS games like FF:CC have it) and other improvements, but it reuses FFIII's graphic and battle engine. That's got to have saved a lot of money. And it's on the DS - not exactly a sinkhole of development funds in the first place.

Errr... yes it does. Otherwise: why not put in the same amount of effort? I don't think anyone would have complained about an FFIVr that was as much of an upgrade as FFIII was, with no voice acting or image song; the only reason to go the extra mile is to send the signal that this edition is "the real deal" and thereby motivate more people to pick it up.

Another reason to go the extra mile is that they released three other versions of the same game in the past 10 years, the most recent on a very similar system with a very similar userbase just two years ago. They need to justify a full price re-purchase by FF fans somehow, and maybe they thought "ooh, 3D graphics" alone wasn't going to cut it. So VA and everything else were probably necessary to justify even the current level of sales. If they didn't put in the extra effort, maybe we'd be seeing even worse numbers (along the lines of the previous ports, which FFIVr is handily outselling).

I really think the biggest contributor to this is FF brand fatigue; we've already seen evidence of it in other titles (like FFTA2). S-E's best response would probably be to majorly scale back the spinoffs and give a little longer (2 years, maybe?) for FFVr, but... I don't think they'll really consider the value of the brand equity "Final Fantasy" built up until it's too late to salvage it, sad to say.

Well, no argument there.

I'm not saying that FFIVr's numbers are phenomenal or anything, it's just that they're within expectations (if on the lower end) given the history of the game and its releases. And since Square is making huge profits off the game anyway even at its current sales levels, I don't think it'll affect the future of remakes in any case.

I mean, Square wouldn't dare announce a FFV remake with less features than FFIV (such as VA), given that those features aren't that costly to implement and FFIVr was profitable in any case. That'd just look cheap/greedy and piss off fans.

 

[sphinx]

It's a core series Final Fantasy title. Full remakes (i.e. with graphical upgrades and new content, like FFIVr) of the Dragon Quest games have always sold in the neighborhood of 1m copies, and the first such remake of an FF did as well. It's certainly not "irrational DS exuberance" that could lead someone to expect such performance from this title.

FF 1&2 on PSP were remakes, not ports and they sold poorly....

Now I wait for your spin about why those games don't count, right?.

 

[donny2112]

Didn't we just spend half a page on explaining how Square made a bigger investment and should have expected it to do at least the same?

We discussed it last week, and I made it pretty clear that I didn't believe that in the slightest. As far as the investment size, the engine was already done for Final Fantasy III, so I would say they probably started off with a lot more financial room for things like voice-acting.

Yes, FF IIIr is the benchmark for FF IVr, and it didn't quite meet that, even though it's a good game by all accounts.

So the fact that FFIII way outsold Square-Enix's expectations somehow means that they expect FFIV to do the same? You're not thinking clearly, at all.

Financially, that position makes no sense. Historically, that position makes no sense, unless you think all the previous remakes except for Final Fantasy III don't count for comparison. ethelred believes that, and I explained how I didn't believe that last week.

Mario Kart DS must be the most consistent seller of all time.:lol

Pokemon Red/Green/Blue. Almost four years from launch until its last appearance in a Top 30.

 

[ksamedi]

Yup. FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII was, thus far; it unambiguously cost more to make and its current sales indicate that it will make less profit. It's ambiguous whether these numbers are still good enough that future DS remakes would still be considered worthwhile investments from S-E, but they're not actively good.

FFIV certainly is a very profitable project because it can be made with a relativly small team and sell more than a million copies worldwide. These are the kind of projects that make buisnessmen happy because they are very low risk. I hihgly doubt that SE is unhappy with the performance of the remakes in general. There is almost no risk involved and they already have a lot of the game code ready.

 

[charlequin]

Are we sure it "unambiguously" cost more to make?

No, maybe not. I'll concede this point and suggest ethelred's claim about effort is a more accurate reflection of the situation.

Another reason to go the extra mile is that they released three other versions of the same game in the past 10 years

I don't think this reflects very well on FFVr, though; if FFIV is still worth it at a lifetime total of ~700k, is FFV going to have been worth it with the same level of development effort and lifetime sales of 550k? (Though I could be wrong and more people will be interested in replaying FFV than FFIV, or the extra year and a half between FFVa and FFVds will be significant.)

FF 1&2 on PSP were remakes

There's no content difference. They're the exact same game mechanics and script with a facelift.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is hard to understand. FF1&2 for PSP provide identical play experiences (but with newer graphics) to FFoS on GBA (and are sold at a ripoff price to boot, given that the last two rereleases of those games were sold combined.) FFIVds plays differently from FFIVgba, with completely new systems, totally different game balance, and a rewritten and expanded script. It's not spin.

You have really shitty memory.

I don't consider the GAF consensus (which also didn't lean particularly negative) to in any way be indicative of the Japanese consumer reaction. What sources we have (sales during the period where word-of-mouth is relevant, Japanese reviews, Japanese message board postings, and anecdotal evidence regarding the game's reception from GAFfers in Japan) point to the game having been well-received there.

 

[Golden Darkness]

There's no content difference. They're the exact same game mechanics and script with a facelift.

Seriously, I don't understand why this is hard to understand. FF1&2 for PSP provide identical play experiences (but with newer graphics) to FFoS on GBA (and are sold at a ripoff price to boot, given that the last two rereleases of those games were sold combined.) FFIVds plays differently from FFIVgba, with completely new systems, totally different game balance, and a rewritten and expanded script. It's not spin.

Actually, there was some extra content added on top (new bosses, dungeons) for both PSP games.

Doesn't make it still worth the money though.

 

[Error]

lol @ MKDS, fucking ridiculous the game is STILL SELLING.
160k for SO1 PSP, not bad. it'll probably be on par with ToI and sell all of it first shipment.

 

[charlequin]

Historically, that position makes no sense, unless you think all the previous remakes except for Final Fantasy III don't count for comparison.

You have a solid point argument about costs (I don't think it's correct, but it's certainly as viable and consistent as my own position) but this angle still seems totally wrong to me. There are no previous FF remakes of the sort that FF3 and FF4 are; there are some ports and enhanced ports, but nothing that has had every element from top to bottom rethought, polished up, and improved (and by the original teams no less.)

 

[jgwhiteus]

I don't think this reflects very well on FFVr, though; if FFIV is still worth it at a lifetime total of ~700k, is FFV going to have been worth it with the same level of development effort and lifetime sales of 550k? (Though I could be wrong and more people will be interested in replaying FFV than FFIV, or the extra year and a half between FFVa and FFVds will be significant.)

True, but even with those lower sales FFVr DS would probably still be more profitable than 80% of S-E's releases. 550K sales are nothing to sneeze at - I think that would still be in the upper tier of sales numbers for ports/remakes, just after the DQ releases (which, after all, are a more popular series in Japan) and FFIII and IV? Certainly more profitable than IAWW, FFTA-2, Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon, etc.

The development costs on the DS are so low in comparison to the sales returns generated that FF remakes are basically "can't lose" propositions for S-E - it's free money to help fund the development of their riskier games. I'd be more worried about the future of original PS3/Wii releases than the chances of future FF DS remakes.

 

[donny2112]

it unambiguously cost more to make

Edit: Saw your response where you say this might not be the case. I'm running behind keeping up with responses at the moment. :lol

It's ambiguous whether these numbers are still good enough that future DS remakes would still be considered worthwhile investments from S-E, but they're not actively good.

*shakes head in astonishment*

Do you remember the shortages for Final Fantasy III? Do you think that Square-Enix shipped a first shipment (that they had to bump up even) that would net them a loss on the title?

I feel you're being overly pessimistic here.

I mean, seriously, let's say the reasons listed in this thread for FFIV's performance are accurate: that would imply that FFVr would put up something like 550k lifetime.

With a similar situation surrounding launch as FFIV, I see no reason for it to sell significantly worse that whatever FFIV ends up at. Going off the deep end and accepting that number, 550K would most likely still make a substantial profit for Square-Enix considering it would be essentially the third game on the same engine.

Remember all those slides from Factor 5 where they talk about Next-Gen development being possible by planning for multiple games at once to spread the budget across? While DS games will not approach the cost of Lair, the concept is still the same. The more they make with the same base, the lower the amount of sales would be needed to make the same profit. Voice-Acting and other pieces are unknowns, but I wouldn't think they'd compare to the actual programming/debugging of the game in cost.

Errr... yes it does. Otherwise: why not put in the same amount of effort?

1) Because this was the fourth remake of the game.
2) Because they already had the available budget compared to FFIII since the engine was done.

They probably could've done a straight upgrade in FFIII style for FFIV and it sell the same amount as it has. I have to think that the consumer that buys this more upgraded version of FFIV compared to FFIII is probably more thankful to S-E than if they had done a FFIII-style upgrade, though. That would make them more likely to buy the next one, too. Probably not a big consideration, but it doesn't hurt.

I think it's unarguable 4 had more *effort*, though.

Definitely.

 

[JJConrad]

You understand that when you write " ...FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII..." you are implying that somehow FF3 was a bad investment. If that's the basis for your opinion on FF4, there is no reason to take anything else you say seriously.

 

[Error]

I just checked S and M predictions (Enterbrain analysts) and wow, overestimate much. I'll also add K ones (me :lol).
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=8270218

Final Fantasy IV - S: 1,200,000 M: 1,000,000 K: 850.000
Final Fantasy Tactics A2: Fuketsu no Grimoire - S: 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 450.000
Mario Party DS: S: 1,000,000 M: 1,200,000 K: 650.000
Minna no Golf Portable 2 - S: 500,000 - 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 400.000
Shin Sangoku Musou 5 - S: 300,000 M: 300,000 K: 250.000
World Soccer Winning Eleven 2008 - S: 900,000 - 1,000,000 K: 700.000
SD Gundam Generation Spirits - S: 400,000 - 500,000 M: 300,000 K: 250.000
Super Robot Wars OG Gaiden - S: 400,000 - 500,000 M: 300,000 K: 150.000
Super Mario Galaxy - S: 1,500,000 - 2,000,000 M: 1,000,000+ K: 1.500.000
Biohazard Umbrella Chronicles - S: 500,000 - 600,000 M: 500,000 K: 150.000
Wii Fit - S: 2,000,000 - 2,500,000 M: 1,500,000+ K: 1.250.000
Lost Odyssey - S: 200,000 - 300,000 K: 200.000
Ace Combat 6 - S: 100,000 - 150,000 K: 75.000
NiGHTS - ?: 200,000 K: 150,000
Dragon Quest IV - ?: 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 K: 1,200,000
Tales of Innocent - ?: 200,000 K: 200,000
GT5P - ?: 800,000 - 1,000,000 K: 300,000

(in bold, the best prediction )

predictions for what? you think DQ4 is gonna stop at 1.2 millions? at this rate it'll sell like 1.3 or 1.4 millions

I can see Wii Fit doing way more than 1.25 millions too. I dont get those predictions, are those total sales predictions?

 

[sphinx]

Seriously, I don't understand why this is hard to understand. FF1&2 for PSP provide identical play experiences (but with newer graphics) to FFoS on GBA (and are sold at a ripoff price to boot, given that the last two rereleases of those games were sold combined.) FFIVds plays differently from FFIVgba, with completely new systems, totally different game balance, and a rewritten and expanded script. It's not spin.

You have a solid point argument about costs (I don't think it's correct, but it's certainly as viable and consistent as my own position) but this angle still seems totally wrong to me. There are no previous FF remakes of the sort that FF3 and FF4 are; there are some ports and enhanced ports, but nothing that has had every element from top to bottom rethought, polished up, and improved (and by the original teams no less.)

you speak like people know all that stuff. Poeple don't know shit about anything, when they see FF4 on shelves, they have the same thought they had when they saw FF1 or 2 for PSP: " nice, a newer version of an old game ". we know extra stuff because we do our DAILY research on the internet but people don't care or know about voice acting, cutscenes, or high profile development team members (as commented by ethelred).

all that counts is that FF4 has been available on several shapes and forms for the last decade. FF3 had around 20 years to get hyped for a remake, there is no other final fantasy game with this particular advantage. How the hell was ANY other final fantasy remake going to outsell FF3, specially one from the ported-to-death old era FF games (1-6)?

please people, stop the nonsense already.

 

[charlequin]

Do you remember the shortages for Final Fantasy III? Do you think that Square-Enix shipped a first shipment (that they had to bump up even) that would net them a loss on the title?

It's not just a question of profit. (I can't imagine a scenario in which FFIV has not been a profitable investment.) It's a question of profit to cost ratio. S-E is a company that can make a lot of different profitable investments (and unlike many Japanese developers, they aren't paralyzed by platform indecision); a profitable FFVr could still be a less ideal decision than investing the same money in smaller, individually more profitable properties. (Though then there's a question of how many titles S-E needs to develop at any given time, and how they need SOME big title for DS and it might as WELL be FFVr, which possibly brings us back to "they'll do it anyway no matter what.")

You're probably right that my position is overly pessimistic; I might be overly strong in trying to balance the "this is selling exactly as well as S-E expected when they greenlit it" position, which I still don't think is accurate.

you speak like people know all that stuff.

It's in the TV commercials. There's a spectrum between what FFIV is (a total remake) and what, say, ToE PSP is (a straight unaltered port) but FFIV is far enough to one side that the difference is visible in the marketing that most casual buyers will see; if you've ever played the game before, and now see a TVCM with the characters talking, you'll know it's a very different game.

It's kind of like all the discussion of a hypothetical FF7 PS3 remake vs., say, a DS remake. It's understood that one looks very different to even a casual audience than the other, and that one has a kind of appeal even to people who have recently played the original game that the other does not.

 

[jgwhiteus]

predictions for what? you think DQ4 is gonna stop at 1.2 millions? at this rate it'll sell like 1.3 or 1.4 millions

I can see Wii Fit doing way more than 1.25 millions too. I dont get those predictions, are those total sales predictions?

I think he was comparing his personal predictions to the Famitsu predictions, and the one that was closest to the actual number (but didn't necessarily hit the number) was the one in bold. So if a game way undersold all three predictions, the person with the lowest prediction was in bold; if a game way oversold all three predictions, the person with the highest prediction would be in bold, even if the highest prediction wasn't anywhere near the actual sales numbers...hope that made sense.

S-E is a company that can make a lot of different profitable investments (and unlike many Japanese developers, they aren't paralyzed by platform indecision); a profitable FFVr could still be a less ideal decision than investing the same money in smaller, individually more profitable properties.

That's the thing, though - in this day and age, FF remakes (and DQ games) are about the only surefire profitable properties they have - that's why they keep making them. Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon on Wii pretty much bombed. IAWW DS didn't sell so hot, and it's an original IP. I won't go into the costs of FFXIII on PS3. There really aren't any "smaller, individually more profitable properties" available to S-E at the moment - the DS has the lowest costs of all current systems, and it generates the highest returns, and these FF (and DQ) remakes seem to be generating the highest returns of all. I mean, how did FFXII:RW, FF:CC, FFTA-2, Heroes of Mana, etc. do in comparison to these remakes?

 

[Stumpokapow]

You understand that when you write " ...FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII..." you are implying that somehow FF3 was a bad investment. If that's the basis for your opinion on FF4, there is no reason to take anything else you say seriously.

Actually, that's a bit of a linguistic folly:

I'm a worse basketball player than Jordan. I'm also not as good of a basketball player as Jordan.

Both of the sentences can still mean "I'm rotten, he's awesome." I think in this sense "FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII" means "Square is making less profit than with FFIII. FFIV is not as good as FFIII in terms of investment"... not "FFIII lost money, and FFIV is losing even more. Both are bad, but this is worse."

 

[Error]

I see

 

[Rolf NB]

I know this might be hard to accept, but the odds are most people genuinely liked FFIIIr. It's really hard to see the game selling a whopping 500,000 copies over the span of months without being buoyed by very positive word of mouth. This isn't a situation like Dirge where strong opening sales plumetted after people got their hands on the game.

So explain to me again why FF IVr has so much stronger legs, even in light of Dragon-Questy competition FF IIIr never had, even though it looked like Japan would shun it, initially. Actually, save that explanation for the week when FF IVr passes FF IIIr's LTD sales. It won't be long. I'm not the one who has to be accepting anything here.

 

[ksamedi]

It's not just a question of profit. (I can't imagine a scenario in which FFIV has not been a profitable investment.) It's a question of profit to cost ratio. S-E is a company that can make a lot of different profitable investments (and unlike many Japanese developers, they aren't paralyzed by platform indecision); a profitable FFVr could still be a less ideal decision than investing the same money in smaller, individually more profitable properties. (Though then there's a question of how many titles S-E needs to develop at any given time, and how they need SOME big title for DS and it might as WELL be FFVr, which possibly brings us back to "they'll do it anyway no matter what.")

You're probably right that my position is overly pessimistic; I might be overly strong in trying to balance the "this is selling exactly as well as S-E expected when they greenlit it" position, which I still don't think is accurate.



It's in the TV commercials. There's a spectrum between what FFIV is (a total remake) and what, say, ToE PSP is (a straight unaltered port) but FFIV is far enough to one side that the difference is visible in the marketing that most casual buyers will see; if you've ever played the game before, and now see a TVCM with the characters talking, you'll know it's a very different game.

It's kind of like all the discussion of a hypothetical FF7 PS3 remake vs., say, a DS remake. It's understood that one looks very different to even a casual audience than the other, and that one has a kind of appeal even to people who have recently played the original game that the other does not.

I don't see what kind of investment could be more profiteble than a remake of V and VI for the DS.

 

[charlequin]

So explain to me again why FF IVr has so much stronger legs

On a week to week basis... because FFIVr released without a shortage during the holiday season, which would help boost its second and third weeks?

FFIII had strong legs for an RPG; it went on to double its first week even after being almost completely sold out for two weeks (and therefore losing a lot of potential sales to used copies.) It definitely did not suffer the bad-word-of-mouth dropoff that titles like Dirge of Cerberus and Tales of the Tempest suffered.


Re: everyone

Anyway, like I said upthread somewhere, what S-E should really be doing is making less shitty spinoffs so that when FFV or FFVI hits on DS people go "hey, I haven't bought a Final Fantasy game yet this year..." Everyone is right that the idea that FFVr won't happen is actually pretty ridiculous.

I don't see what kind of investment could be more profiteble than a remake of V and VI for the DS.

A remake of V and VI for the PSP? :lol

No, no, I kid.

 

[JJConrad]

Actually, that's a bit of a linguistic folly:

I'm a worse basketball player than Jordan. I'm also not as good of a basketball player as Jordan.

Both of the sentences can still mean "I'm rotten, he's awesome." I think in this sense "FFIV is proving to be a worse investment than FFIII" means "Square is making less profit than with FFIII. FFIV is not as good as FFIII in terms of investment"... not "FFIII lost money, and FFIV is losing even more. Both are bad, but this is worse."

I'm aware of all of that, but its still a needlessly negative wording for that sentence. It's forgivable it wasn't what not his intent, but considering nature of his other arguments he just sounds overly pessimistic.

 

[Kurosaki Ichigo]

predictions for what? you think DQ4 is gonna stop at 1.2 millions? at this rate it'll sell like 1.3 or 1.4 millions

I can see Wii Fit doing way more than 1.25 millions too. I dont get those predictions, are those total sales predictions?

jgwhiteus pretty much explained it already but the predictions were done in October (mine at least, just as we got the Enterbrain analysts predictions in Famitsu that week). They were predictions for the holiday period, not LTDs, although to some titles that is the same, not Wii Fit case though.

 

[donny2112]

You have a solid point argument about costs (I don't think it's correct, but it's certainly as viable and consistent as my own position) but this angle still seems totally wrong to me. There are no previous FF remakes of the sort that FF3 and FF4 are; there are some ports and enhanced ports, but nothing that has had every element from top to bottom rethought, polished up, and improved (and by the original teams no less.)

From a quality standpoint, I'm perfectly fine believing you to be correct. FFIV may only be comparable to FFIII when it comes to the effort put in and the quality of the remake.

My point last week was that you shouldn't use the quality of the title to determine comparable games for looking at sales to consumers. There can be all kinds of advertising for a game, but that doesn't mean that all or even most of the people that walk into the store have seen it and think of it when determining a purchase. What is common knowledge to the core gamer is often a complete unknown to the normal buyer.

It's not just a question of profit. (I can't imagine a scenario in which FFIV has not been a profitable investment.) It's a question of profit to cost ratio.

Ah. That makes more sense.

a profitable FFVr could still be a less ideal decision than investing the same money in smaller, individually more profitable properties.

As the third game with the same basic starting point (as far as programming goes), I think they'd be hard-pressed to find several smaller titles that would match the profit on even 550K in sales. I'm totally guessing here, but it seems reasonable to believe that to me. Also, there's overhead with every project, so having multiple projects means more base cost overall. Again, it's just supposition.

I might be overly strong in trying to balance the "this is selling exactly as well as S-E expected when they greenlit it" position, which I still don't think is accurate.

They probably had different sales milestones in their plan.

e.g.
1: Make a profit.
2: Greenlight FFV re-make (if it wasn't already greenlit).
3: Greenlight a FFV re-make with a FFIV level of effort.
4: "Awesome sales," for lack of a better term. :lol

While I don't think 750-800K qualifies as #4, I think it would easily reach #2 and probably #3, too. Again, it's just supposition on my part here.

 

[ethelred]

In case my position is unclear, I certainly don't think I've ever argued that Square Enix would take a pass on an FFVr for DS. I think it's a done deal; I think they began work on it the day after IV wrapped. Whether there'll be a VI remake, though... that I don't know.

So explain to me again why FF IVr has so much stronger legs, even in light of Dragon-Questy competition FF IIIr never had, even though it looked like Japan would shun it, initially. Actually, save that explanation for the week when FF IVr passes FF IIIr's LTD sales. It won't be long. I'm not the one who has to be accepting anything here.

I don't think I'd say IV has demonstrated stronger legs than III. If IV goes on to consistently sell out its shipments for four months, then I'll say that. And I don't see IV reaching III's LTR, which is how this whole discussion got started. Though in my defense, someone else started it this time.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't think I'd say IV has demonstrated stronger legs than III.

I'm not sure "legs" can really be honestly compared, given the total cockup of the supply situation with FFIIIr. Can something really be said to have short legs if the supply is fucked so thoroughly?

I mean, DQMJ and FFIIIr are the two worst supplied games in the last four or five years. DQMJ managed to rebound nicely. FFIII didn't so much, although thanks in large part to the very impressive opening week, it still did an awesome lifetime figure.

I would say that provided you accept that III and IV can be compared in this fashion, IV certainly reveals itself to be more of a slow burner and have longer staying power. I'm just not convinced the premise is any good.

 

[charlequin]

As the third game with the same basic starting point (as far as programming goes), I think they'd be hard-pressed to find several smaller titles that would match the profit on even 550K in sales.

Yeah, upon further consideration I've decided that in likelihood the savings on engine development were probably much more significant than I originally thought.

While I don't think 750-800K qualifies as #4, I think it would easily reach #2 and probably #3, too. Again, it's just supposition on my part here.

That does not seem impossible (and, as ethelred suggested, it's possible that FFV was already in development before FFIV even shipped.) I suspect that if there was, like, a straw estimate for sales at greenlight that it got revised down several times to arrive at that initial shipment, though.

 

[ksamedi]

In case my position is unclear, I certainly don't think I've ever argued that Square Enix would take a pass on an FFVr for DS. I think it's a done deal; I think they began work on it the day after IV wrapped. Whether there'll be a VI remake, though... that I don't know.

Why do you think that? Is it because its too big of a project?

 

[Xeke]

I don't know how people think the extra effort put into IV comes close to the money saved from reusing the engine created for III. I don't see how the comparison can be made with the different number of releases for each game...

 

[donny2112]

I don't know how people think the extra effort put into IV comes close to the money saved from reusing the engine created for III.

There was definitely a cost-savings from starting with the same engine and an extra cost of voice-acting, script writing, etc. Whether they equal out or one is much greater than the other, though, is an unknown.

 

[Galactic Fork]

There was very little balancing and difficulty change in FFIII. There were less enemies onscreen (3vs8) and they boosted the hitpoints to compensate. Certainly nothing like what they've done with FFIVDS.

Also, there was one new job - the Freelancer class, which no one uses after 2 hours in because it's the class you start in. And it most certainly didn't drain much effort since it's a reskinned Onion Knight.

You're over simplifying the changes to the classes to balance them. According to SE at least, they overhauled the Job system to make them more balanced. It wasn't simply a boosting of hitpoints in the enemies. I do apologize for saying jobs when there was only 1 new one, the FFIII DS's onion knight was the new class. Even though it shares the name of the onion knight, it's not the same.