440°

Square Enix Points To PlayStation Exclusivity As A Key Reason For Final Fantasy 7 Rebirth's Success

Now, as Square Enix is embarking on a journey to remake one game with three games, we’re learning why Square has decided to keep all three of these games exclusive to PlayStation consoles.

In an interview with the Washington Post, producer Yoshinori Kitase cites keeping Final Fantasy VII: Remake, Final Fantasy VII: Rebirth, and seemingly the third game exclusive to one platform has been a core part of the success of the first two games so far.

Snookies1282d ago (Edited 82d ago )

I don't really think that's true. I went out of my way to buy a PS5 to play FF VII: Rebirth. So, it's the other way around for me lol. I would have bought another Xbox (after trading mine in not too long ago) if it was only there to play. Final Fantasy's name recognition, on top of VII's renown in the gaming world is why it's moving a lot of units.

82d ago Replies(3)
Nitrowolf282d ago (Edited 82d ago )

Did you not read it or just not get past the title?

The PS5 in the headline is obviously because it's what's exclusive platform it's on, but this is pertaining to the games scope and how being on a single platform really helped them build this world. That has played to it's success, otherwise it possibly wouldn't be getting as good as reviews. Good review and having good things to talk about your game bring in sales.

It could have been exclusive to any other platform, they're just pointing out how that really helped them, versus setting resources and time aside to developing another platform at the same time, that would have ultimately downgraded what they could have done, or delay the game out to who knows when.

Ironmike82d ago

It's only a timed exclusive it ends in May feel free to check

mkis00782d ago

Ironmike

Let me know how remake plays on xbox will you? Are the controls good?😶

Babadook782d ago (Edited 82d ago )

“It's only a timed exclusive it ends in May feel free to check“

And if Rebirth is like Remake don’t count on the game actually coming to PC in May. Who knows how long it will take to develop. Remake took longer than the exclusivity deal. There’s no announcement either.

Christopher82d ago

***It's only a timed exclusive it ends in May feel free to check ***

SIE says they're not timed. Feel free to check.

Asterphoenix81d ago

Ironmike

It will be the same case as with FF7 Remake. It will drop on PC sometime after the PS timed exclusivity is up. The recent news of it being a PlayStation console exclusive is highly likely true with lots of Sony people had a hand in support the development of these titles. Which is shown in the credits of those titles which other Square multiplatform titles don't.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 81d ago
blacktiger82d ago

But you went out of the way,
THAT'S A HUGE SUCCESS

KwietStorm_BLM82d ago

You either didn't read the interview at all or you just didn't get it.

Juancho5182d ago

Just cause you don’t think it’s true doesnt make it so. Final Fantasy 7 and other titles have been Sony exclusives and have utilized the hardware and systems specifically so they could push boundaries and not succopmb to lowest common denominators. Sony’s partnership with them on these projects is very obviously breneficial to the game and the gamers alike, the final product is a testament. We all played FF7 on PS1, if i didnt already have a PS5 i would’ve bought one just for these titles because of how much i loved ff7.

derek82d ago

@Snook, not saying your opinion is irrelevant but SE opinion holds way more weight.

Michiel198982d ago

Square has more incentive to lie/give a skewed view though, they are the one benefitting from it the most.
It's kinda insane how you all gobble up pr talk like hungry turkeys. No matter the result of their partnership, they would have always talked positive about it. No company would ever say anything negative, especially not so short after launch or you might as well start pouring gasoline over your money.

Games_People_Play82d ago

That nice little 💰 Sony gave them for exclusivity, probably didn’t hurt either.

z2g82d ago

I agree. An exclusive intentionally limits who can play it. You’ll get disagrees because loyalty supersedes logic amongst the diehards. What’s objectivity, anyway….

lelo2play82d ago

Square Enix basically belong to Sony...

DarXyde81d ago

Well known fact that games sell hardware. But it is also true that people look to maximize their hardware investment over the course of a few years and buy in before there's much to play yet.

We'll get an idea of how much Rebirth drives PS5 sales by end of March. Since it's a late month release, we'll have a better idea in March.

If PS5 sales are high, we can assume people held off on getting a PS5 until Rebirth.

If PS5 sales remain within the typical estimates with high Rebirth sales, the game is likely being sold to an existing install base.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 81d ago
Tacoboto82d ago

FFXV was open world and released on the weak as heck Xbox One S day and date with everything else.

Ubisoft titles... Red Dead Redemption 2... Hogwarts Legacy... GTA V on the 360 and PS3.

No. Being exclusive isn't the reason it's a seamless map.

82d ago
MrNinosan82d ago

Just admit you have not played Rebirth, if you compare it's open world with FFXV.

Tacoboto82d ago

I haven't played yet - decided to start Armored Core VI instead, but the Special Edition came in and is awaiting install.

But I have been playing games, that have been multiplatform and open-world, since the 360 era. This developer comment makes no sense and seems insulting to the dev team actually.

Barlos82d ago

That's a laugh, because that was also the reason why FFXVI didn't perform as well as expected wasn't it?

Rocketisleague82d ago

Yeah, that was the excuse.

Ff7 is a system seller. Simple as.

Barlos82d ago

Definitely. Always has been.

Ironmike82d ago

I don't think it is and I own both games remake and rebirth but iam only giving my op of remake as I haven't played rebirth yet but remake is notva system seller its good game and actually got me into the franchise

Rocketisleague81d ago (Edited 81d ago )

Nobody cares what you think of the game ironmike, or me for that matter. It is factually a system seller. Final fantasy in general used to sell systems. Ff7 in particular is the one that made final fantasy a system seller in the first place. Hence a good remake pushing the nostalgia drug trip over those who didn't get ps5s yet.

Ff16 was actually the point at which I finally got a ps5 myself.

Shane Kim82d ago

You must be delusional if you think it being on xbox would make any difference. FFXVI was sadly written off from the get go.

Barlos82d ago (Edited 82d ago )

It wouldn't. Xbox doesn't do JRPGs. I did think it was a great game though. Sure it was a departure from typical FF formula, but it was no less enjoyable. To me at least.

FinalFantasyFanatic81d ago

Considering Rebirth's success, I sometimes wonder if FF16 isn't as good as people make it out to be, I haven't played it so I can't say for sure.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 81d ago
slate9182d ago

Yeah the lump sum they're getting from Sony is definitely key to their success.

DarkZane82d ago

You're incredibly delusional if you think it would have made a difference if it was on Xbox.

slate9182d ago

Selling anything to an install base of 30+ million will make a difference. This website got you gassed up.

mkis00782d ago

Go look up sales splits for games, then go look up sales splits for japanese games...xbox sells like a tenth of what the same japanese game sells on playstation.

Sephiroushin82d ago

if we go by crisis core numbers not even a margin of error difference!

porkChop82d ago

Considering Xbox isn't getting the FF7 remake trilogy, did you really expect the Xbox fanbase to buy the prequel?

Sephiroushin82d ago (Edited 82d ago )

@pork
are you asking me, really?
Well, I dont expect xbox fanbase to buy them at all even if it was coming to xbox same day release... now a days xbox gamers would first ask if it was coming to gamepass, get told "no", then proceed to wait for it to come to gamepass sometime ...

MrNinosan81d ago

@porkChop
Crisis Core has nothing to do with Remake.
It's a prequel to Final Fantasy VII, which is available on Xbox, but that didn't sell either.

S2Killinit82d ago

I think anyone who wants to minimize costs of production would be smart to release on PlayStation, as opposed to xbox.

Considering that xbox base doesnt play games like FF relative to PlayStation or Nintendo, why would they want to release on xbox with its 30 million instal base? It would be wiser to release on PlayStation and invest the savings into making a better game.

Incidentally, thats what he is saying in the interview. But someone has to spell it out to people it seems.

Alos8882d ago

@slate91 Not when the platform in question has a historical indifference to japanese rpgs. Xbox only ever accounted for about 30% of FFXV's lifetime sales, and it's likely Sony's cash incentive for exclusivity more than made up for that.

MrNinosan81d ago

@Alos88.
FFXV didn't even stand for 10% of the sales on Xbox compared to Playstation.

Show all comments (97)
260°

Former Square Enix Exec Sheds Light On Final Fantasy Sales Expectations & Budget Realities

A former Square Enix executive has shed light on sales expectations and budget realities of the Final Fantasy series.

Read Full Story >>
twistedvoxel.com
CrimsonWing696h ago(Edited 6h ago)

Yea, I love how so many on here did simple math like 3mill x $70 = they made a profit.
When that’s not even close to how this works.

They take the years spent and equate the ROI to the sum % of stock prices during the years of development to do a baseline ROI and then you have the 30% taken out of every sale on a platform EXCEPT for Steam, which is 12%.

Nobody factors in the cost for production of physical media, the cost of advertising, marketing, and the loss from discounts/used game sales and they wonder why selling 3 mill for FF16 isn’t profitable. Or they don’t understand amortization and how games are supposed to generate profit over a long period of time.

Instead, they say Square makes unreasonable expectations for a game to sell when it’s the reality of the cost of AAA development and ROI. I wish I could go back and reply to comments where people jumped down my throat telling me FF16 and FF7 Rebirth were financially successful and I had no idea what I’m talking about.

EternalTitan6h ago(Edited 6h ago)

3mil is not a flop. 3X70 means 210 million. That still made some profit because gaming industry does have a high profit market/product.
Its just that this was not able to cover their fiscal year and disasters like Forsepoken.
Also 16 wasnt even a JRPG let alone an RPG let alone a Final Fantasy game.

CrimsonWing695h ago

This is exactly what I’m talking about…

StoneTitan5h ago

You are wrong about steam only taking 12%
Steam takes 30%
The Unreal store takes 12%

CrimsonWing695h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Dang it, that’s what I meant. EGS only does 12% which is why exclusive deals for them are better for the devs in terms of getting more on a sale.

So with the 30% taken out of a $70 the pub/dev gets $49. Less for discounted sales and none for used game sales.

VersusDMC4h ago

The problem is you assume it is simple math for FF16 and Rebirth. You don't know how much money Sony paid for exclusivity or if they reduced the 30% cut as well.

Both those games definitely made money and still have PC versions to be released.

CrimsonWing694h ago(Edited 4h ago)

How can you say that when you don’t know?

Here just for context, Spider-Man 2 was $300 mill. In order to break even, that is no profit, they needed to sell 7 mill copies. That’s at full price, btw. So, we’re not saying 7 mill copies that could be $20 each or at a discount.

FF16 Selling 3 mill was probably a good sign in the beginning until sales stopped hard. You know what Square did then?
Something pretty drastic that plummeted their net profits by 65% and operating income by 78% and put them in the red. They paid the dev cost themselves. The reason was sales halted so badly that doing this would make every game sell at a profit moving forward and looks better to investors.

So, just to recap a highly expensive AAA game like Spider-Man 2 at $300 mill budget has to sell over 7 mill to make a profit and even more so for ROI. FF16 did 3 mill and sales slumped so badly they paid off the dev cost instead of allowing for amortization.

FF7 Rebirth was estimated at 2.5 mill and slowing down…

So, yea, those sales don’t even cover the dev cost. How are you coming to the conclusion that they sold well enough?

VersusDMC3h ago

I love how yearly profits drops are blamed on the PS exclusives that sell well enough to be best selling games of the month and of the year and not the multiple other multiplatform games that bombed. Like Valkyrie alysium, diofield, etc...

Also assuming Rebirth or 16 had the same budget as Spider man 2 is beyond idiotic considering Japanese game development is way cheaper than in the US and Sony has to pay Marvel licensing costs.

I am coming to the conclusion that the games sold well because Square said they sold well.

16 sold to expectations at launch but dropped more than expected but still expected to hit 18 month goal. Rebirth sold under expectations but still not bad. Those are their words.

CrimsonWing693h ago(Edited 3h ago)

I’m not saying it cost 300 mill to make I was using that as an example. Say it was $100 mill and then another $100 mill for marketing and events…

Get where I’m going with this? It’s not like a game suddenly ramps up to another 3 mill units sold at full price a year later. Games are much like movies in the way that launch day sales and those few weeks are where the most sales happen and then it slows down big time.

As for your assumption, I don’t know how to break this easily to you, but they told investors it failed to perform and again paid off the dev cost instead of waiting for amortization. I’m not trying to insult your intelligence, but do you know how amortization works in terms of sales and expenses?

Also, can you link me where they said FF7 Rebirth sold “not bad?”

VersusDMC3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

Here is where square enix president says Rebirth sales aren't necessarily bad.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FF...

They told investors FF16 will reach the 18 month goal in the link above and amortization of the costs of FFXVI meant future sales a profitable according to the analyst in the link below

https://www.tweaktown.com/n...

"Rather than follow the trends, Square Enix has instead chosen to pay off FFXVI's costs outright, which means that all future subsequent game sales will be profitable."

CrimsonWing692h ago

Yea that’s the drastic move I was mentioning that out then in the red. They paid off the entire dev cost for FF16 so that any game moving forward is technically profit… lets be real, you put your company in the hole like that those copies while, technically profit by definition, isn’t recouping things. He believes that can make the 18 month goal, which I don’t know what that means… are they talking sales of the game or the point in time that the game should be at in terms of profit?

Foamstars lost 95% of its playerbase as a free-to-play game. Are you telling me the amount of microtransactions it sold werent “necessarily bad?”

It sounds kind of like PR talk. I mean, if you’re promoting or discussing a product you tend to go politician when speaking. Y’know, like when the Xbox President gets asked questions and words them in ways not to reflect negativity… or in her case completely shift the discussion.

The reality of the situation is these games didn’t sell and are actually selling worse with each entry. It’s not just with Square, but this is hitting the industry as a whole.

A lot of Games just aren’t selling and the cost to develop is too much. My other point was to show you can’t say game sold 1 mill x $70 = profit made and dev cost covered when there’s so much more to it than simple math like that.

Michiel198938m ago

ff16 has been worked on since 2015, that was preproduction so I'm not sure if we know when full production began, but that is a long time for a studio to be working on anything.

So I'm not sure if I believe it has made profit (already)

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 38m ago
Elda3h ago

More than likely FFXVI cost 100 million or more to make, then giving 30% of the sales to Sony means they made a very small profit if it only sold 3 million copies.

shinoff21831h ago

We don't know how much Sony paid square though either

Elda17m ago(Edited 16m ago)

@shinoff2183. There's a possibility Sony didn't pay S-E anything as far as exclusivity. Maybe S-E thought that FFXVI would be better off being exclusive on PS5 instead of putting it on XB as well because FF sales are not really all that great on XB. No one knows how business was handled between Sony & S-E of the exclusivity of FFXVI but the 2 companies.

neutralgamer19923h ago

Crimson

When you do exclusive deals platform holders can decide to take less than 30%. Most games make the most money in initial 12-18 weeks (most not all) because that’s when game is selling for MSRP

And square enix does stupid things to make less money on yearly basis they release complete and utter failures like Forsaken

CrimsonWing693h ago

Can you show me where you found the info that platform holders take less than 30%? You’d think if you paid for it to be exclusive to your platform you’d want to get as much money out of the deal as you can.

And yea… I mean Forspoken definitely put them in the hole and they dissolved that entire studio. But look at FF7 Rebirth, what could easily be considered the best game they’ve done in ages, it’s selling even worse than 16. If it sold “good enough” you wouldn’t see them cease all exclusivity and aggressively pursue multi platform releases.

neutralgamer199246m ago

crimson

first of al that deal is very different. SE didn't want to remake FF7 because of the cost so sony helped them with actual development costs upfront. without sony there would be no FF7 remake. Just like without sony there wouldn't be silent hill 2 or MGS3 remake

InUrFoxHole2h ago

You're absolutely right. You're the only one figured that out. Congratulations 👏 👏 👏

CrimsonWing692h ago(Edited 2h ago)

Awww cmon man. I’m trying to just have a discussion on this because I’m legit curious on how this all works. Like toss the ol’ pig skin back and forth with me, here.

I'm not trying to brag, but when this all went down and I linked articles stating otherwise I got dogpiled by fanboys.

Seriously, let’s flip the script and actually have some civil discourse here instead of going straight for the throat punches.

InUrFoxHole2h ago

I'm all for that but you know other people have factored all that in. Ivan Drago that game... if it dies... it dies

shinoff21831h ago(Edited 1h ago)

You forgot to mention Sony paid handsomely for these to be exclusive also. It's not like Sony just asked and square did it. Sony paid

CrimsonWing6923m ago

I did mention it in the comments. I have to do my best not to drop novels on here trying to be as articulate as possible.

What was the total Sony paid? Because if it’s as “handsome” as you say it is why is Square pulling away hard from exclusivity?

fr0sty1h ago

The physical media barely costs anything to make, I know because I make blu-rays for a living. You can buy them by the disc for way less than a dollar per disc. Case and all, I dont spend more than $1.50, and I'm not even buying them in the bulk numbers Square is.

CrimsonWing6925m ago

Right but then you have to factor in how much do distributors take for selling the physical media. So, how many discs gets manufactured at $1.50, how much are the physical distributors taking? So keep in mind platform holders also take a percentage of physical media and then the actual stores/distributors take a percentage. People wonder why there’s a larger push for digital only… well, that’s a pretty big reason.

The point though is all this gets factored in. How much do the devs/publishers take from a physical media sale?

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 17m ago
EternalTitan6h ago

Stop making terrible game like 16 and it will be fine.

VersusDMC4h ago

The 3 million plus selling, 87 metacritic game is definitely the problem and not the mediocre bombs like diofield, harvestella or Valkyrie alysium...

franwex4h ago

Hard disagree here. It’s not a terrible game. Not being YOUR cup of tea is different. Some people don’t like Tetris, and that doesn’t mean it’s a terrible game.

Terry_B3h ago

Yeah...and more than "some" people want to play a Tetris if the product is named Tetris.

If a game is called Tetris 16 but it plays more like Lumines or Collumns its not what "some" people wanted.

You get what I mean.

franwex2h ago

@Terry

It’s expected that every FF will be different though. I do agree that the combat itself was lacking compared to previous entries. But it’s not a bad game at all. It’s not even a bad final fantasy either.

shinoff21831h ago

It barely felt like an rpg though. That turns of alot of people. Far as 7 tmremake trilogy they made a dumb decision with 3 parts, rebirth may have suffered from alot of other jrpgs coming out at the time where as far as rpgs or jrpgs ff16 had no competition. Also not sure how true it is or was but I read that the ff7 remake double pack wasn't being counted as a sale

Lionsguard3h ago

This honestly does not bode well for the final part of the FF7 series. It often makes me wonder why they ever bothered to remake it at all if this is the thanks they get for making one of the greatest RPGs to exist. All that hooting and hollering at conventions for nothing.

ziggyzinfirion2h ago

I'm sorry I keep seeing this but what exactly is the concern for Part 3? Aren't they already announced that they are already working on it?

Lionsguard2h ago

Yeah but who knows what they will cut to save money knowing that sales are low.

shinoff21831h ago

Lionsgard I don't think they will cut anything tbh. It's still gonna get a pc release. Possibly Xbox if it's still around to.

shinoff21831h ago

I was alright with it but they may have turned some people off the last 10 years with ff. Unless their remakes I won't be buying a new ff game.

30°

Frostpunk 2 Director Łukasz Juszczyk Discusses Game Balance, Politics, and Beta Feedback

TechRaptor writes, "After getting our hands on the Frostpunk 2 story, we got to sit down with Łukasz Juszczyk to talk about how the game evolved from the original."

Read Full Story >>
techraptor.net
70°

XDefiant dev promises fix to frustrating hit reg issues, though players remain skeptical

Mark Rubin, XDefiant’s executive producer, responded to an X/Twitter post that fixes to hit reg “are something [they] are working on.” Unfortunately, it’s unclear when it will arrive, as neither Rubin nor the development team have yet to provide an actual time frame.

just_looken2d ago (Edited 2d ago )

Ha man what is this the 8th time they are working on this issue?

SO the game is using division one maps/assets with some divison 2 thrown in with that we can say they never really made the maps so what have they been doing for there 6 to perhaps 8 years of dev time? must be alot of hookers/blow/parties.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

Notellin2d ago

It's astounding how much money they blow and this is the results. Gaming development is out of control.

just_looken1d 22h ago

Right even when ubisoft cancelled division heartland as a beta player that game was a far better state then they push with this trash of a game that is still in a beta state after 3 years of delay's.

we are so starved of any decent fps/3rd person shooters out there it seems we will take anything even though some ps2 fps games were more fun then this game in my old opinion.

FPS_D3TH2d ago

Skeptical because it was an issue with ALL the betas and still hasn’t been fixed

just_looken1d 22h ago

Its like they are using division one servers but they caught fire then were put together with barry/carols help from the janitors wing or some shit. Three years they still can not make it so the gun goes boom the guy gets hit then damage is applied.