Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Square To Merge With Enix 286

SquareAMP writes "The makers of the 'Final Fantasy' video game series will be merging with the makers of the 'Dragon Quest' series to produce an RPG powerhouse to be re-named Enix Square Co. Reuters has all the details of the planned merger, that includes the dismantling of Square's assets and absorption into Enix. For Square fanboys fearing that this may ruin their favorite RPG company, Square's current CEO Yoichi Wada will be running the combined entity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Square To Merge With Enix

Comments Filter:
  • Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by motardo ( 74082 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:28AM (#4758035)
    I never saw that one coming. Maybe we'll get some of the great Enix RPG's coming here from Japan.*

    *yeah right.
    • We might, actually. It really depends on how Electronic Arts' deal with Square to handle distribution in the US gets handled. I'm suprised EA stock hasn't reacted to this news at all (down 55 cents at $67.75 at the moment) they might have just gained an whole new set of games to sell.

      I'm also interested to know how much stock Sony will end up owning in the new company. I can't find any figures for how much stock Enix and Square have, but if we assume (for no good reason) that it will be equal amounts, and there will be no stock created independantly of the input from Enix and Square, Sony will end up owning about 8.3% of the new company.

  • by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:30AM (#4758054)

    Squenix.

    In other news, rumor has it that "Square's current CEO Yoichi Wada" will now be called 'Yoda' for short.
  • by Audity ( 600754 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:33AM (#4758066)
    Final Saga or 7th Fantasy?
  • What next? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Castolari ( 532333 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:33AM (#4758069) Homepage
    "PLAGUE OF LOCUSTS, FIRE AND BRIMSTONE, CATS AND DOGS, LIVING TOGETHER!!!"

    I mean, wow. That's my response. Just consider that the last time member from both companies really collaborated, it resulted in Chrono Trigger.
    • Chrono Trigger was the coolest game ever. I hope we see more stuff like that as a result of this merger. I might just have to get into gaming again...
    • Chrono Trigger is by far and away the best RPG that square ever put out, and I'll say even further the best RPG in the linear, console style (as opposed to say Ultima, which has far more exploring but a less driven story) Why, you ask? 1- the story made sense. I can't emphasize this enough. The game threw no curve balls. There were no 11th hour magical items, supernatural dieties, or sudden revelations required to make the plot make sense. By about 10 hours into the game, the major story device (time travel), the major enemy (lavos), and most of the main characters had all been revealed. The framework was set, and while the plot was gripping and surprising, the game never "broke character." Compare this to the senseless twists and turns of FF7 and FF8 and the slow descent into incomprehensible philosophizing in FF10. 2- small cast of well-developed characters. Chrono Cross was such a dissapointment. Great battle system, yes. Best Graphics on PSX, yes. Shitty, shitty RPG. What I would really like to see is a game that mixes the event map system of chrono trigger (walk around environments, see enemies walking around, fight them in place, no cut to battle) with the battle system of FF Tactics or Ogre Battle (turn based, tactical combat with a strong emphasis on movement and positioning, rich class system with a LOT of customization potential) with a more exploration based design similar to metriod or castlevania, yet without losing the epic story arc. an easy design to pull off? probably not. but there seems to be some talent behind this new entity. oh and 3 - The Kingdom of Zeal was just plain friggin' cool. best reinterperetation of the Fall of Rome/Dark Ages theme I've ever seen. Schala Lives! opinionated nerdy fanboy signing off.
  • Hopefully (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rik Sweeney ( 471717 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:35AM (#4758076) Homepage
    Square and Enix will skip the next 18 Final Fantasy games and give us the one we're all waiting for:

    Final Fantasy XXX
  • by sweede ( 563231 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:36AM (#4758085)
    Here's the story from Yahoo [yahoo.com]

    "Under the accord, 0.81 Enix share will be exchanged for one Square share, with Enix emerging as the surviving entity. "

    and

    "The postmerger entity, to be called Square Enix, "

    while you where correct in that Enix is going to absorb square assets,

    "Square, in its current company structure, will be disbanded, and (on paper, anyway) Enix will absorb Square's assets and liabilities. However, Yoichi Wada, current president of Square, will head up the new company, suggesting that Square will have more power than Enix in the merger's final structure. "

    all of this was also repeated here [gamepro.com]
    • by analog_line ( 465182 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:02AM (#4758264)
      This isn't uncommon. I take for example, my perennial example in such instances, the Digital/Compaq merger and the HP/Compaq merger. When Digital was bought by Compaq, there was some low key but intense infighting in which many of the former Digital management people gained the upper hand, making many at Compaq HQ that I knew when I was working as a consultant there joke that Digital bought Compaq with Compaq's money.

      As well with HP, many of those in HP were none too please about the atmosphere that was coming into HP with all the merger talk and post-merger layoffs. From everything I've seen, it sounds much more like Compaq than HP these days.

      Square took a HUGE blow after the Final Fantasy movie. They sunk millions into Square Studios and the movie just didn't make any real money (though I'm quite fond of it... one of the greatest pieces of computer animation ever in my opinion and it'll change the way that kind of thing is done). Sony had to come in and bail them out, and in doing so gained a hefty share of Square, so in actuality, Sony may have had a larger hand in this merger than anyone may have realized, seeing as they would get a much firmer hand on one of the best game development houses in Japan (even though we don't see much of it over here...Dragon Quest 7, I believe, is still the largest selling game ever in Japan). With Sony's backing of Square, I'm not surprised to see a Square executive at the top.
  • What ever happend to Dragon Warrior? I loved that game back in the day of NES!

    It would be nice to see a good revival of that series, I can only hope :)
    • What ever happend to Dragon Warrior? I loved that game back in the day of NES!

      The original was re-released for the GBC, with this weird "personality test" at the beginning, and without all the cool medival speak. No more "thou"s and "hath"s, which is a real shame.

      In Japan, the Dragon Warrior (aka Dragon Quest) series kept going while the U.S. (What about Europe? Australia?) audience was cut out of the loop. Japan also got a DW1 & 2 combo cart with improved graphics for the SNES.
  • by krinsh ( 94283 )
    I resemble that. I'm Square, but not a fanboy.
  • by curtisk ( 191737 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:40AM (#4758119) Homepage Journal
    >>Square, which lost 16.6 billion yen after an unsuccessful foray into movie-making last year
    Man, that sucks that that was such a big risk for Square. To this day I'm still surprised at just how crappy the Spirits Withins' script was, I mean it was surprising, I think they simply got caught up in the visuals, and were "oohhhhh" and "ahhhhhhhh"-ing themselves......
    Both companies have made great games in the past so to have them combine could be a very good thing. I just would have never thought "SQUARE" to have to merge with anyone
    • by MisterFancypants ( 615129 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:49AM (#4758179)
      Man, that sucks that that was such a big risk for Square. To this day I'm still surprised at just how crappy the Spirits Withins' script was, I mean it was surprising, I think they simply got caught up in the visuals, and were "oohhhhh" and "ahhhhhhhh"-ing themselves......

      If Spirits Within were a GAME, even with the same plot, it would probably be considered the most amazing RPG ever, story-wise (oooh!! sweeping epic!).

      Which is not to say I thought the plot was good for a movie.. it isn't. All I'm saying is games and movies are very different at a core level as far as what story-telling techniques can and should be used, and Square ignored that difference at their own peril.

      • by macshit ( 157376 ) <snogglethorpe@NOsPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:34AM (#4758440) Homepage
        Which is not to say I thought the plot was good for a movie.. it isn't. All I'm saying is games and movies are very different at a core level as far as what story-telling techniques can and should be used, and Square ignored that difference at their own peril.

        I think it's also the case that standards are simply lower for game (RPG) plots. You often don't notice as much, because the interactivity sort of grabs you and sweeps you along, but really, if you think about them afterwards, the plots are usually very simplistic and overly melodramatic, and the characters crudely drawn (in the story-telling sense, not the art!).

        [But -- silly me -- I still seem to play them anyway... :-]
        • True, but not always.

          Games with good plots:

          Final Fantasy VI
          Baldur's Gate series
          Dragon Warrior IV
          Ultima IV (and the whole series in general is pretty good)
          Final Fantasy Tactics (borderline good)
          Fallout 2 (Never played the first one, heard it was good)

          And, of course, the best plot in any game *ever*...

          Planescape: Torment

          Unfortunately, games are a different storytelling environment and inevitably it degrades into "collect seven stars of wonder and defeat the hooded foozle" - the trick is to have that and a good plot. There are more I haven't mentioned - this is just off the top of my head.

          It's basically just like movies and books - some are awesome (Torment == LOTR), some are good (Fallout 2 == Neuromancer), and some are just bad (Some shitty cookie cutter star wars book == the latest final fantasy cookie cutter game -> fun to play/read but hardly groundbreaking)

          (Note: My comments are my own - opinions about games are simply that - opinions, so don't flame me cuz I dissed Star Wars or Final Fantasy)
          • did you really mean FF VI?

            Fallout 1 and 2 both rock, yes.
            • Yep, I found it quite interesting - yeah, it has all the staple elements of any Final Fantasy game, but that one also had some interesting twists and turns. I would give the story a 7/10.

              I forgot Chrono Trigger too - i'd give that one about the same.

              These games stories could have been a lot better, but they lost a lot in the translation. FFV on the playstation had that problem too - the free translation on the Internet was actually better.
      • Yes, the plot elements, "collect the seven spirits; foil the evil villain; find love," are all basic components of the Final Fantasy games. The comparison with the later games 7, 8, 9, and 10 is especially true.

        The story of FF:TSW is somewhat important in the Final Fantasy universe since it shows how the FF world was created, why there are strange creatures walking around, and how there is a mix of magic, technology, and traditional weapons.

        It's still not a great movie. They should have made it a game and called it Final Fantasy Zero. Oh well.

    • "I think they simply got caught up in the visuals, and were "oohhhhh" and "ahhhhhhhh"-ing themselves......"

      They've been doing that to themselves since FF VII. It looked like they were coming out of it when IX came out, but X demonstrated that IX was one last "hurrah" for FF as a game. Which really makes me wonder what the heck they expect to do with an MMORPG. How do you work hours and hours of FMV into an MMORPG?

      The day I realized that there would never be any more Final Fantasy games like IX again is the day I put my PlayStation 2 up for auction on eBay.
  • wow (Score:5, Funny)

    by tps12 ( 105590 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:42AM (#4758136) Homepage Journal
    What'll that be, some sort of dodecahedron? How many sides in an enix again?
  • by molog ( 110171 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:43AM (#4758142) Homepage Journal
    What about us Enix fanboys? I know I'm terrified that now my favorite RPG company will be ruined. I'm not the greatest fan of the FF series. I really did enjoy the Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest) series though.
    • No kidding. Square did Einhander. Now that was a great game, but the Final Fantasy series is like a broken record (and a bad one at that). All pretty graphics, no gameplay.

      Hell, the last Final Fantasy (what was it, 10 or 11? I don't even know anymore) was basically a 12 hour animated movie. In fact, the only gameplay I remember at all was that stupid sports game and one REALLY long path through the mountains where you actually got to FIGHT stuff. Too bad the combat hasn't really changed since Final Fantasy 2 and that only served to bore me further.

      I hate being a PC bigot, but man, if you want a good RPG Squaresoft isn't the company, Bioware is. I'm scared to see what Squaresoft is going to do with the Enix franchises.
      • by 13Echo ( 209846 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @11:10AM (#4758742) Homepage Journal
        Square didn't really "make" Einhander. It was done by Dream Factory, a smaller studio that had some ties with Square. They also did The Bouncer, Tobal, and "Ehrgeiz". Among other titles, they did the UFC: Tapout games for XBox.

        Same with things like Bushido Blade, a Lightweight game. Another example: Quest Software members were also contracted for other things, like the FF Tactics games.

        Square hasn't really made a whole lot of games in-house, aside from the Final Fantasy Franchise. They mostly do publication or contract other developers to make games for them.
      • I don't know what FFX you were playing, but I thought is was a great one. There were plenty of battles and I thought the level up system was a very interesting twist to the game. I also liked the new way of handling turns. In general, I thought FFX was a very good FF game (doesn't quite compare with VI or IV (IV was 2 in the US right?) But then again, I'm also one of those people that actualy enjoyed FF VIII
  • Paranoia Alert (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Saxerman ( 253676 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:48AM (#4758168) Homepage
    My first thought at any news into the video game industry is, "What does this have to do with Microsoft?" I've been attempting to advise my friends against buying DOA3 machines, pointing at recent gaming acquisition by Microsoft. I ask them, "How many game companies will Microsoft have to buy before you realize the problem in supporting them?" They just think I'm a Paranoid Linux Zealot. They're probably right.

    However, I know Microsoft was talking to both Enix and Square [videogamereview.com] about bringing games over to the Xbox. I also know that Sony owns a big chunk of Square. Is Sony circling the wagons to protect their assets from falling into the hands of the enemy? Do the big gaming companies have anything to do with this merger?

    • "My first thought at any news into the video game industry is, "What does this have to do with Microsoft?""

      Of course, that's the question most Slashdotters ask themselves whenever they see a new article on here...
  • by Bethor ( 172209 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @09:52AM (#4758190)
    As a game developer myself, I am quite worried about the state of the industry, and this merger further aggravates the problem.

    During the 80s and early 90s we had a healthy number of development houses, and lots of them took risks in order to differentiate themselves. The result was of course innovation. Plenty of it.

    Nowadays development costs are absolutely HUGE. Only a few hits actually sell enough to cover their costs. Nobody can afford to take risks, and there is very little innovation going on.

    Here in Japan, I know Nintendo has been funding small development teams that come up with interesting ideas, but I havent seen any fruits yet.

    What else can be done? Is there any hope?
    --
    • by Obsequious ( 28966 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:24AM (#4758377) Homepage
      Yeah, I've been pondering this myself. To be considered a "great game" today you have to have dazzling graphics, great video cut-scenes, detailed in-game models and physics, etc. Oh, and of course you have to have great game-play.

      The problem with this is that only the game play can really be done by "one person with a vision." Everything else takes real human blood, sweat, and tears to produce. That is a huge cost, and is a heavy burden to bear.

      The gaming industry as it currently exists has been based on a studio model as you point out. That worked fine when a small team could realistically accomplish all the work to make a game. Unfortunately, that model doesn't work as well when you have huge teams, it seems, because the cost outruns the productivity gains. Or something, anyway; maybe I'm talking out of my arse.

      But the key insight to me is that people have been saying for years that eventually games and movies will "merge" into some kind of interactive entertainment. Well, maybe, maybe not, but I do think that it is obvious that games are becoming more like movies. Consequently they are sooner or later going to develop movie-like budgets.

      Only large organizations can fund that kind of thing (indie film community aside for the moment.) As a result I can't see anything in the future of gaming communities except consolidation to the point where the companies ARE large enough to fund high-end games.

      Maybe it'll turn out something like the (primarily European) auto industry (which to a degree it already is:) a number of studios work on concept and prototype contracts, and large corporations productize the prototypes.

      Today, the game studios make entire games while the publishers (like EA) handle distribution. I suspect that the balance will shift a bit, so that instead of producing entire completed games, the smaller studios will produce an upgrade game engine, or a new set of character models, or whatever. Compare this with car studios that produce new engine upgrades and tweaks, aggressive new body styles, and so on. The studios then sort of sell this technology and art to the large manufacturers/publishers.

      This also sounds somewhat like what Nintendo is trying to do with their small groups: let the groups focus on innovation and new ideas while the large institutional development shops actually make games. I think it's a model that can work, although I don't think it'll be quite the same atmosphere that the industry has enjoyed up until now.

      I'm also not sure how I feel about it. The best games I've seen have been really works of art created by a single group. Grand Theft Auto, StarCraft/WarCraft, Final Fantasy, etc., and of course the classic games from years past. There are some mainstream movies that I've enjoyed as much that clearly have the same kind of hand-crafted feel, but they are few and far between. I am afraid that as the game industry "matures," it will go along a similar route.

      But, maybe not. Who knows, really? I guess we will have to wait to find out.
      • Yeah, I've been pondering this myself. To be considered a "great game" today you have to have dazzling graphics, great video cut-scenes, detailed in-game models and physics, etc. Oh, and of course you have to have great game-play.

        I'm sure that hold true for the computer and various consoles, but what about the GBA?

        • Hmm, good point. In my hypothetical future world, the GBA would still be a simple enough device to allow small creative teams to build entire games. So maybe the GBA (and similar devices, like cell phones and whatnot) will remain a sort of playground for "indie" game developers.

          I still think that the big consoles and PC games will continue to migrate in the direction of movies, with the bigger == better mentality. Heh... maybe we'll find that pound for pound, the GBA has better games that may not be as flashy but are more creative and fun.

          For example... Mario Sunshine is quite cool, but I am still hard-pressed to say it's a better game than Super Mario World (aka Super Mario Advance 2 on the GBA.)

    • to me, it seems that the biggest problem is time.

      there is only so much time you can spend developing a game. eventually you have to publish it. this is dictated mainly by console life and the fact that if you spend years in development, what was groundbreaking in the beginning is blase when it publishes.

      so say you have 2 years to create your game. rule #1 at this point. can't have a great game unless it looks great. so better get working on those graphics. and it better have some nice movies. this that and the other, and eventually gameplay gets tossed in there as well.

      now look back 10 years to the original nintendo. (best gaming platform even IMO)

      your main character is 12 pixels. the enemy is 10 pixels. you have midi sound. no cut scenes.

      the same time frame now has almost no costs associated with graphics and sound, so more time and effort can be pourted into GAMEPLAY. for FUCK'S sake, get me gameplay!

      some of my favorite games look like ass but are tons of fun. and isn't that really the point?
    • The state of the industry is such now that only those with the money to promote their games will make any money off them. And that's not even enough. Part of the problem is the price of games; most gamers can't afford to drop $50 on every game that comes out. But it's kind of a cyclical problem, that $50 pays for the development of the game and the development of the other games the company produced that didn't make it big. But now video game development costs are approaching hollywood figures and the margin for error is much less, so fewer of those less successful games get made. Which is a shame, a lot of them are very good but their appeal is too narrow to ever draw a broad audience.

      It's eventually going to get so expensive that only a few companies can afford to do it, which is what is happening right now in the industry. With colossal companies like Nintendo, Electronic Arts, and now Square Enix, there's little room for the smaller developer. I see the video game industry (at least in the console world, but it's happening on the PC side of things too) becoming much like the movie industry. The big companies make most of the games with an occaisional breakout hit by a smaller company (think indie films.)

      Unfortunately, it doesn't look like things are going to get better. Consumer attitudes are also to blame for this, but it's somewhat understandable that if someone is going to drop $50 on a game, they want to KNOW it's good before they buy it. The problem is the standards are set so high that only companies with a mammoth budget can hire good artists and designers while having enough money left over for an army of coders to get the damn thing out on schedule.

      This situation really isn't too big a problem so long as the large companies continue to put out quality product, because if they should stop, the market is not yet prohibitive to smaller developers (hell, 3 years ago, Square looked invincible) They'll continue to milk their flagship series because, well, it sells. That's why we have so many Zeldas, Metroids, Final Fantasys, Dragon Quests, Madden NFL games and the like. Big developers will always be able to count on these to make a profit, but if the margins on each game are decreasing, there will be less room for experimentation. There's really not much that can be done here; consolidation is a reality in pretty much every industry. Let's just hope it doesn't decrease the quality of the games.
  • ..Square RPG's on other systems besides Sony.
    • Nuff said. They wont go near XBox, though. They know how it's trying to ruin the market.
  • Squarenix (Score:5, Funny)

    by jokercito ( 190777 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:02AM (#4758269) Homepage
    Sounds like some sort of distro.
  • The question now is who is right, Jeremiah or I? He claimed Enix was the better game developer, I claimed Square was (excluding FFX) Looks like we'll have to battle to the death with knives again!
    • If you're going to fight to the death... er... again, you'd best make sure you have some phoenix down.
    • Don't you mean "excluding FFVIII" ?!?! X wasn't that bad. VIII was a steaming pile of monkey shit! The story collapsed halfway through the game, the magic and levelling system SUCKED... Ugh. The only good thing in the game was that card game subgame thing... I just CRINGE thinking about it...

      Kintanon
  • by YAN3D ( 552691 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:15AM (#4758324)
    Well, judging by how crappy the last three installments of Final Fantasy were, this could be a good thing.

    On the other hand, Enix and SquareSoft are the two of the most popular and successful RPG makers. During the time of the NES and Super NES, these two companies were forced to make better and better games to compete with each other. We had Final Fantasy from Square and Dragon Warrior from Enix, which were both great titles and why do you think that is? Competition, plain and simple.

    Later on there was Final Fantasy Tactics and Tactics Ogre, both great games as well and both made to compete with one another. Who remembers ACTRAISER? One of the best Enix games , made in my opinion to compete with square.

    Will this merger result in better games because of the combined effort? We'll just have to wait until the first game by Enix Square comes out.

    Oh yeah, Tobal no.2 Rocked! Fighting game RPG for the playstation by Square. Played the whole game in Japanese because it was never ported to the states. One more thing Square, whats the deal with Wakka? He lives on a tropical island, he speaks with a Jamacain accent and plays a soccer like game. But HE'S WHITE?

  • This shows you how big Enix must be in Japan. Wasn't Dragon Warrior 7 the highest selling game of all time? Anyways, save for a few picks out of a few titles, Enix never sold well here (not to my knowledge, since I'm not a mega-nerd that knows who the developer or publisher of every game is). Meanwhile, it seemed like Square is all over everything, and sold millions of every title it released. Yet Enix is the bigger company. Weird.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Without knowing all of the details, this looks like a big win for Nintendo. Sony owns a 19% stake in Square, which suddenly isn't so impressive anymore. If that means Square games will appear on other platforms then the PS2 will certaintly lose some of its appeal. Nintendo had already weaseled around the PS2 exclusive agreement by funding a company that is working with Square to produce Gamecube and GBA games, but this deal is much better from the Nintendo perspective. Enix is the real mystery though. They have a history of only supporting one console, but the target platform of the next Dragon Warrior game has not been announced yet. There are also substantial rumors of an enormous Nintendo announcement coming in December, which many have thought to be Enix related. Time will tell. As for Microsoft, don't expect too much from this for the XBox. It's selling less than the PSX in Japan, so there really isn't a market there for Square Enix to care about.
  • Being from the land down under, (Australia for those of you who don't get out much), I'm sincerely hoping that this will boost the amount of Role Playing Games coming from Japan...

    I mean, the only good Role Players, are Jap ones, and not many are translated and redone for Pal systems... And if they must be imported, you have to have a deft knowledge for the Japanese language... Sure, we do get Squaresoft's products... but not many Enix products... and, correct me if i'm wrong, but i don't actually believe we got Chrono Trigger... Hey, I'm a consumer, i know nothing! But in any case, I'm praying that it brings more RPGs down here.

  • How will this effect Square's torrent relationship with Nintendo? I want a new FF for my 'Cube dangit.
  • Hopefully this will be a beneficial collaboration for both companies. As many have pointed out so far, the last bunch of Square efforts for the Final Fantasy series have been more of an achievement in technical prowess than anything else, the last "great" Final Fantasy game being FF7 in my humble opinion. While I haven't been impressed with many of Enix's games per se, they're pretty imaginative and will hopefully bring a lot to the creative table for Square to work with.

    Right now there isn't much for console markets where RPGs are concerned, at least not in the US market. One game I'm looking foward to seeing brought over the pond is .hack//sign, a game that can only be described as a simulated MMORPG. Sounds intriguing to me, I'd love to try it.

  • Sony let Square bet the farm, and when Nintendo's President adviced against the movie (based upon their experience with the Super Mario Bros. movie), it caused a huge fight between Square and Nintendo which led to their falling out.

    When Square collapsed, Sony picked up the pieces for pennies on the dollar, leaving a HUGE stakehold in the company. This likely also led to some ill will between Square and Sony.

    Square likely has some deals in place with Sony that gives Sony some teeth, but selling the assets helps with this. Now Sony gets its share of Square heavily diluted. All of a Sudden, Square Enix has two HUGE RPG assets, a much smaller Sony investor, and free reign to do what they want.

    Expect Square Enix to support Nintendo Gamecube more (RPGs are bigger in Japan, and Nintendo is a player in Japan... with Square Enix games, Nintendo is a real player in Japan). I would also expect an American-targetted Xbox RPG with the Final Fantasy name. That game would likely be glitz targetted (the Japanese perception of the American market, not unfounded).

    If Square was still directly suffering financially from the Final Fantasy movie, the deal would be a bit differently. You see weird stuff like this in mergers all the time. Merging to survive is always interesting. Expect Enix's senior management was well compensated for the bailout, and acquiring Square assets into the Enix corporate shell was a nice way out of some contractual obligations.

    Best example of a similar arrangement, Apple/Next. Apple was a larger, more financially stable company with dead technology. Next was a small, struggling company with good technology. Apple "bought" Next but turned the combined company into Next with the Apple name.

    Alex
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:48AM (#4758551)
      Huh? The Square and Nintendo fallout came years before The Spirits Within. It actually goes back to the N64 and Nintendo's decision to use cartridges instead of the CD format. Square, who was already planning to make a FF game for the 64 (there were already screenshots), dumped Nintendo and went over to Sony. The feud was only beginning though. Ads for Final Fantasy 7 made the point that a cartridge-based system had no chance of making such a beautiful game. Worse though, and this only became widely known this year, they convinced Enix to dump Nintendo as well. The bad blood lasted until early this year, when Nintendo struck a deal to bring Square games back to Nintendo consoles. Of course, the millions lost on the movie probably had something to do with that, but not everything.
      • Nit-picking.

        "It actually goes back to the N64 and Nintendo's decision to use cartridges instead of the CD format."

        Actually, it goes back just a tad further. There's been bad blood between Nintendo and Square over the way Nintendo showed favoratism towards Enix. For example, when a bigger Super Famicom cartridge came out, they didn't let Square have it until the next Dragon Quest game came out on it.

        Also, Square was unhappy with Nintendo's (ultimately wise) decision not to make a CD add-on for the Super Famicom. They wanted to make Seiken Densetsu 2 (aka "Secret of Mana") much larger than it was.

        "Ads for Final Fantasy 7 made the point that a cartridge-based system had no chance of making such a beautiful game."

        Not that they knew back then that Zelda: OoT would bitch-slap FF VII's sales soon afterward...

        "The bad blood lasted until early this year, when Nintendo struck a deal to bring Square games back to Nintendo consoles."

        To be honest, it was more like Square striking a deal, as they were ultimately the ones that had to change their behavior.

        Square wanted to re-make the first few Final Fantasy games as handhelds, but there was the slight problem of Nintendo 0wnzoring the handheld market for the past decade or so. Square, with their typical prima-donna attitude (yes, I'm biased) told Nintendo that they would develop for the Game Boy Color but not the GameCube. Yamauchi told them to sit on it and rotate.

        Square dropped the idea of using the Game Boy Color and, continuing with their "I'm so pretty" attitude, decided to hitch a ride on Bandai's pending WonderSwan Color. Square ignored the 8 year history of Game Boy putting the smackdown on any and all competitors, seemingly with the attide of "Any system that we publish on will automatically sell well!"

        The WonderSwan Color hit the shelves (packaged with Final Fantasy I, no less) not long before the Game Boy Advance came out. Final Fantasy fans bought the WonderSwan Color and Final Fantasy I (and only Final Fantasy I) and oohed and ahhed about how much better it looked than the original Famicom game. Square, on the other hand, was suspiciously silent about how the WonderSwan Color's performance is somewhere between that of a Sega Master System (8-bit hardware, superior to the NES) and the Sega Genesis (16-bit hardware, inferior to the SNES). On the other hand, the Game Boy Advance's 2-D capabilities have been compared to that of the Sega Saturn. Like it or not, if Square wanted to improve on any Final Fantasy games after III (or perhaps even after II... III is a pretty damned impressive game for the Famicom and has yet to be released for the WSC), it most certainly was not going to be on the WonderSwan Color.

        The WonderSwan Color fades into history just like so many other worthy (and several unworthy) competitors. Square still wants to re-make those old Final Fantasy games. And Nintendo has all the cards.

        So Square capitulated and agreed to publish games for the GameCube (a Final Fantasy spin-off and possibly the pending MMORPG). And Yamauchi laughed all the way to the bank.
    • The falling out between Square and Nintendo was based more on Nintendo's not going with a CD format (they want CG's) and that Nintendo basically said they could have done a better job with Super Mario RPG than Square did. Just thought I would mention those points.
      • Not only that, but Nintendo (IIRC) refused to let Square release games in North America without running them through Nintendo's translators and censors. Ever wondered why the PSX FF4 and SNES FF2 translations are so different? This is why - Nintendo insisted on censoring the games for the kiddie-dominated NA market, while Sony was willing to let Square do their thing. Nintendo, I believe, has since changed their stance on this.

        • Aparrantly it was also Nintendo who insisted that Final Fantasy 4 be released as Final Fantasy 2 in the U.S. (and 6 as FF3). Presumably this is because they skipped the old NES releases of 2 and 3 in the U.S. But apparrantly Nintendo didn't think that Americans could understand non-sequential game numberings? At least when they went and re-released those games for Playstation, they used the original numbers. It caused more confusion than simply skipping 2 and 3 would have done.

  • I have to say with this merger they have quite possibly the greatest writers and character creators in video game history. With the two companies no longer competing it may give them more money to work with for development. MMmmm Dragon Warrior (Quest) Online... BUhahaahha! I can see it now they'll release a FF title, then a DW title, and keep rotating.. Edrick lives again! What about the shots Square took at Enix in FF1? Will they re-release it without to pot shots (Look at tombstones and you'll see an RIP Edrick poking fun at Dragon Warrior). I pray we get some excellent titles out of this merger. They have the creative minds to do it. More importantly Enix just Got Nabutso Utsemei (I know I fucked up the spelling!) at a better price I'm sure. My .02

  • My two C(omm)ENTS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @10:49AM (#4758566)
    1. The name should be Enix Squared and represented as "Enix" followed by a superscripted 2 (which, unfortunately, /. won't let me demonstrate here)
    2. I much prefer the battle engine of Star Ocean 2 (never played the first one) to Final Fantasy (any of them)
  • Quite a shock (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Stonent1 ( 594886 )
    I mean.. I haven't heard much from Enix recently and then this... I still thought that Square had some money to kick around. I guess not. Maybe Square can start focusing on what people want again. FF7 and FF9 were excellent games. 8 and 10 were kinda ho-hum.
  • PGC Coverage (Score:4, Informative)

    by Omkar ( 618823 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @11:01AM (#4758658) Homepage Journal
    Planet Gamecube's coverage of the story [planetgamecube.com]

    Check out their forums for some intelligent discussion. I saw the news there around 11PM Central. Bloomberg's Coverage [bloomberg.com]

    Sony's share has been diluted to 10%, so this looks like a win for Nintendo. Remember, Yamauchi's Fund Q let Square develop for Gamecube and GBA when Sony owned a fifth of the company. I couldn't care less, though. DQ might be good, but all Final Fantasy games after FF3 (6 in Japan) sucked. Note to Square: focus more on gameplay, like Miyamoto (IMO, the Mozart of videogames).
    • What's wrong with Gameplay on FFX? I picked it back up again, and there's a massive amount of stuff to collect and fight. Just look at the FAQs on GameFAQs.
      • Massive != Fun. Check out Pikmin and Luigi's Mansion for examples of short and sweet games.
        • And why would I buy it, when I could rent it and beat it in a day? What's the point of playing it again, when there's nothing new. A game with no replay value is not a game at all. It's a rental, and that's it.
          • Why would I play an FF game, when I could experience everything novel in an hour? What's the point of continuing, when there's nothing new? A game with no gameplay is not a game at all. It's shovelware, and that's it. Seriously, gameplay matters more than any other quality of a videogame. What's wrong with being a rental game? Also, many people like to replay fun games.
  • by Alric ( 58756 ) <.slashdot. .at. .tenhundfeld.org.> on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @11:10AM (#4758749) Homepage Journal
    It is my understanding that Square produced games exclusively for Sony for two reasons.

    1. Sony helped Square pay off some massive debt after the failing of Spirits. This gave Sony a voice in the company, but there was no contract of exclusivity signed.

    2. Square ended the love affair with Nintendo primarily because Nintendo refused to move away from a cartridge based system. Square wanted to move towards games with astounding amounts of high resolution graphics. This began with the N64, but it is still relevant. The GameCube uses optical disks with 1.5GB storage capacity. The PS2 uses DVD's with 4.7GB capacity.

    Square Enix will most likely continue to ignore the GameCube. However, with Sony having a smaller voice in the new company (if Sony can ever have a small voice), we can probably expect a few Square Enix games for the XBox. The XBox uses DVD's with 9GB storage capacity and has more powerful graphics processing. But maybe Square Enix will choose to support its fellow Japanese company (Nintendo) and will choose to ignore the American rival (MS). These are exciting times for RPG fans.

    • 2. Square ended the love affair with Nintendo primarily because Nintendo refused to move away from a cartridge based system. Square wanted to move towards games with astounding amounts of high resolution graphics. This began with the N64, but it is still relevant. The GameCube uses optical disks with 1.5GB storage capacity. The PS2 uses DVD's with 4.7GB capacity.

      Judging from the graphics in Metroid Prime, Mario Sunshine, or even Starfox versus Final Fantasy X and Kingdom Hearts, I somehow don't think that it's the storage limitation that has anything to do with having 'great graphics.' Moreover, the idea of having Metroid Prime as multiplayer makes anyone forget Halo almost instantaneously -- it's that good. Granted, I love both of them, but the PS2 didn't seem to be all that much of an upgrade versus the PS1 graphically -- whereas the Gamecube is miles above the N64.

      I also think that many people are forgetting that Square has already started development on Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles, which is a Nintendo-exclusive title, and they have not released any plans for Xbox development.

    • The actual capcity of CDs over cartridges wasn't the issue.

      it was the manufacturing costs of CDs over Carts. You needed to make Carts in BULK, plus the cost of actually making them... It adds up. With optical media you just press and go. The actual media costs a fraction of what a similar cart would cost. Like NeoGeo games. a CD version, while having horrible loadtimes, is far cheaper, roughly 30 bucks than a neogeo homecart, roughly 100 bucks.

      As far as Xbox support? Not bloody likely. Square and Enix are both companies that highly pander to the Japanese market. And will pander to that market first, and given the Xbox's sales in japan? See above comment, Not Bloody Likely.
    • "Square Enix will most likely continue to ignore the GameCube"

      No, they won't. Square wants to get in on the Game Boy Advance in the worst way and Yamauchi won't let them unless they also do something on the GameCube. Unless Square is interested in flushing more money down the tubes on yet another failed hand-held...
  • As a longtime console RPG gamer, I don't know what to expect from this merge. Will they make good, fun games like Chrono Trigger? Will they kill competition with big eye-candy 3D RPGs with no plot at all?

    Well, I don't have money for a modern console anyway.
  • We should encourage all transitions to *nix.
  • by somethingwicked ( 260651 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @12:21PM (#4759343)
    Everytime I see/hear the name Enix, I regret that it makes me think of the Dukes of Hazzard...

    I know I will lose karma for this, but thats okay, I had to share and karma is crap anyways

    Enix: You sure do look purdy today, Daisy.

    Cu Cu Cu Cu
  • by Maul ( 83993 ) on Tuesday November 26, 2002 @12:51PM (#4759632) Journal
    First of all, the "Final Fantasy" movie was a huge mistake. Square should have known that they'd only attract fans of the FF series, who would immediately be disappointed that the movie had nothing to do with any of the games AT ALL, but was just a crappy sci-fi movie titled "Final Fantasy" to get them into the theaters. Besides, the track record for video game based movies should have told Square not to make the film.

    Second of all, Square is getting pretty sloppy, IMO. Instead of creating a new game, they are getting lazy and making "FF10 Part 2." While Square might spout some PR garbage that FF10 is so popular that they wanted to give players another chance to play in the FF10 world, the real reason for this FF10 side-story is so they don't have to put cash into developing an all new game.

    To top it off they are considering "FF7 Part 2." Hopefully plans for at least the second of these will be canned thanks to this merger, but I doubt it.

    I don't have very good impressions of this merger because it seems that the "Square" entity of this merger will have more control. I'd rather see Enix on top, since their most recent games have not been as crappy as FF10 or Kingdom Hearts.

    More than likely things will stay the same for the time being. The new company will continue to develop games from their most popular series for the Playstation 2. The focus will continue to fall away from the story and world and will emphasise more and more on pretty graphics.

    Remember that Square was still working on some games for Game Cube and GBA. This might open Square games up a little more for release on multiple platforms, but there is probably going to still be a huge emphasis on Playstation 2.

    This has nothing to do with the Sony/Nintendo/Square politics, but rather the fact that there are something like 50+ Million PS2s out there and only like 20 Million X-Box and Game Gubes (combined). While it might benefit them to release a version of FF11 for every console, given it has a subscription, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile for them to abandon the PS2.
    • This has nothing to do with the Sony/Nintendo/Square politics, but rather the fact that there are something like 50+ Million PS2s out there and only like 20 Million X-Box and Game Gubes (combined).

      Actually according to Nintendo's operating results, the numbers are more like 41.6 million PS2s, 6.7 million Gamecubes and 3.9 million Xboxes. So the numbers are even more in favour of the PS2 than you posited.

    • "This has nothing to do with the Sony/Nintendo/Square politics, but rather the fact that there are something like 50+ Million PS2s out there and only like 20 Million X-Box and Game Gubes (combined). While it might benefit them to release a version of FF11 for every console, given it has a subscription, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile for them to abandon the PS2."

      Alright, so my posts are beginning to sound like a broken record...

      Sony may have console dominance as of now (I'm tempted to say that all bets are off after this Christmas, though), Nintendo does have a wildcard in the form of the Game Boy Advance.

      As you mentioned before, Square is getting lazy, which is demonstrated by the way they have been releasing old games again (Anthology, Chronicles, etc...). IIRC, they were even talking about re-releasing VII, VIII and IX as DVD games for the PS2.

      However, I through VI are 2-D games, and nobody in their right minds would make 2-D games for a modern console (unless they were Miyamoto or something). Which leaves handhelds.

      They re-released I and II for the WonderSwan Color, but the WSC hardware just isn't up to playing SNES games. It may not even be up to an improved version of III. But even if it were equal to or even superior to the Game Boy Advance, the WSC has the major market disadvantage of not having the words "Game Boy" written on it. I'm thinking it will be at least another half-decade until anybody else is foolish enough to go up against the Game Boy legacy again.

      Square "needs" to get onto the Game Boy Advance if they still want to milk their old licenses for all they're worth (reminds me a bit of George Lucas). And Yamauchi, being the miserable (yet still lovable) curmudgeon that he is, won't let Square publish on the Game Boy Advance unless they also publish on the GameCube.
    • they'd only attract fans of the FF series, who would immediately be disappointed that the movie had nothing to do with any of the games AT ALL

      I think any true fan of the FF series would realize that it would have nothing to do with the games, just like the games don't really have anything to do with each other.

      not been as crappy as FF10 or Kingdom Hearts.

      I can't say anything about Kingdom Hearts, but I personally really enjoyed FFX. I don't know how well the sequel will go over, but that remains to be seen. If it turns out to be a fun game, then by all means go for it.
    • Um. As a huge fan of FFX, I, for one, am awaiting X-2 with bated breath. I DO want to play in that universe again. And what of FFXI and XII? They are obviously not ignoring, either financially or developmentally, new games. Hell, I'd assume that they've sunk more money into XI than any other FF ever. It'll be the first online FF (which is one reason I'm not all that interested in it - FF should be a single player experience). Putting everything in place that needs to be there has got to be costing them a fortune in money and programmers. Hell, I even liked Kingdom Hearts, but wish that some aspects of it had been different (I got really tired of turning around and seeing Goofy's mouth-breathing head or Donald Duck's ass - but I figure Disney required they be onscreen all the time).
  • Sega just released Phantasy Star Collection (I through III) for the Game Boy Advance.

Solutions are obvious if one only has the optical power to observe them over the horizon. -- K.A. Arsdall

Working...