All Square Enix Games are Going Online

[Depression Moon]

http://blogs.forbes.com/v...-games-will-go-online/ (http://blogs.forbes.com/velocity/2010/06/23/square-enix-ceo-all-our-games-will-go-online/)




For the most part, the famous "Final Fantasy" series of video games has been a single-player experience. You level up your characters to fight bigger and badder bad guys, as you progress through the storyline. It's like reading a book; you do it on your own.

That could change soon. Square Enix's chief executive Yoichi Wada sat down with Forbes at the E3 videogame conference in Los Angeles last week to talk about the big changes he has in store for the company.

"In all of the games we will be releasing going forward, some kind of multiplayer element will be incorporated one way or another," says Wada.

While the company's line-up of games goes beyond "Final Fantasy," this still represents a radical shift for Square Enix. Clarifying his point, Wada says this doesn't mean that all games will be fully online experiences.

"It is not as if all the [all of our] game creators will become capable of creating MMORPG-type games," he says. "What we will encourage them to do is to incorporate some kind of multiplayer element even in single player games."

As if that won't shake things up enough, Wada intends to bring in "fresh blood" and "change the culture" of Square Enix. See the full story in the article published on Forbes.com Wednesday to find out how.

[VeloZer0]

In some ways this could be good, in some it could be very bad. Adding something like multiplayer battles to FFT was an easy addition. For something that focuses more on narrative I don't see it working without diluting this.

I personally liked SE games because I get to play by myself.

[Rostum]

Interesting...

I'm of the belief that it'd be insane from a business standpoint to not embrace the online experience, since that is where technology and the industry is heading in general.

Also, I'm pretty sure he says an online experience in some capacity, not that it'll be required or it'd be to the extent of an MMOG.

[Levian]

While online experiences are fun, I think FF is a series I'd prefer offline. Offline multiplayer action sounds great though, I do tend to use the multiplayer function in FFIX.

[Depression Moon]

FFIX doesn't have multiplayer, it has co-op.

It sounds like Square's really heading down a path I don't like. For all games sounds ridiculous, because all games don't need them and probably a good few of those games won't be popular, so they wasted a feature that hardly anyone would use. I probably won't be with Square much longer to see the next real one, but if someone wants to play an FF with multiplayer then they can play XI, XIV, or Dissidia.

[Rostum]

I probably won't be with Square much longer to see the next real one.

Since when are you "with" Square? I sure do love the gamers that get on their high horse and have their own expectations for what their favourite company must do in order to please them.

[Depression Moon]

high horse don't come at me with that. First of all if it wasn't for them there's a good chance I might not be alive to type this.

[Mirage]

FFIX doesn't have multiplayer, it has co-op.

Multiplayer is short for multiple players

More than one player simultaneously in a game is by definition "multiplayer". There's cooperative multiplayer, and there's competitive multiplayer. Why the crap would it bother you if there was optional multiplayer in upcoming SE games anyway? No one is forcing you to use it.


There is nothing I want more than online co-op in FFvs13. It would enable me to have a lot of fun with friends I know all around the globe, that I would never have been able to play with if there only existed "offline co-op".

[Jibril]

FFIX doesn't have multiplayer, it has co-op.
This quote hasn't been jumped all over yet? You guys are slow.

Edit: damn it stale.

[Mirage]

Oh yeah Jib. I bet you know who I'm talking about when I say "friends all around the globe".

[Clo]

I'm not a huge fan of online gaming, so this prospect doesn't thrill me.

There are other RPG series.

[VeloZer0]

You can say that it doesn't affect you if you only play single player, but it does. All the resources they put into multiplayer content are resources that could have gone to enhancing the single player experience. Adding something like a simple duel mode isn't a huge undertaking, but to include a comprehensive multiplayer experience consumes a large amount of resources meaning the game will either be longer to develop, or have the single player experience compromised due to lack of development time/manpower/budget.

I don't have anything against people enjoying games online. After playing White Knight Chronicles I can certainly see that it isn't for me, and how it seriously compromises the single player experience. Thats fine, that is how the game was developed. Different target audience.

I think it is a different story if ALL games have to include an online component though. With FF13 taking three years and a whole ton of money I can't help but feel that adding these features would have anything other than a detrimental effect on my gaming experience.

[Mo-Nercy]

"Fresh blood" and "change of culture" sounds fine to me. I'm happy to see the company mix it up a little bit. Bring on the multiplayer, I say. If they did it with only the mini-games or side quests, I think it'd be a nice change of pace.

[Mirage]

You can say that it doesn't affect you if you only play single player, but it does. All the resources they put into multiplayer content are resources that could have gone to enhancing the single player experience. Adding something like a simple duel mode isn't a huge undertaking, but to include a comprehensive multiplayer experience consumes a large amount of resources meaning the game will either be longer to develop, or have the single player experience compromised due to lack of development time/manpower/budget.

I don't have anything against people enjoying games online. After playing White Knight Chronicles I can certainly see that it isn't for me, and how it seriously compromises the single player experience. Thats fine, that is how the game was developed. Different target audience.

I think it is a different story if ALL games have to include an online component though. With FF13 taking three years and a whole ton of money I can't help but feel that adding these features would have anything other than a detrimental effect on my gaming experience.
With the huge budgets S-E games have these days, the only way it'd significantly decrease the quality of the single player part would because of stupid design choices and resource management, not because there wasn't enough resources all in all.

Not to mention, multiplayer helps push more copies (and even more than that if it wasn't for uninformed people hating on it for no real reason), meaning they could have a larger budget and still make money on it.

And I love your new sig and avatar, Mo.

[VeloZer0]

With the huge budgets S-E games have these days, the only way it'd significantly decrease the quality of the single player part would because of stupid design choices and resource management, not because there wasn't enough resources all in all.
I was considering time as a resource as well.


(and even more than that if it wasn't for uninformed people hating on it for no real reason)
I don't know if this was aimed at me specifically but I would like to point out all I was expressing is the fact that for a gamer of my tastes this has a lot larger potential drawback than benefit. No doubt for some it is a great boon. As always I will buy games individually based on if I think I will enjoy it or not.

[Mirage]

With the huge budgets S-E games have these days, the only way it'd significantly decrease the quality of the single player part would because of stupid design choices and resource management, not because there wasn't enough resources all in all.
I was considering time as a resource as well.
Wouldn't take much more time if they brought in a few programmers that wouldn't otherwise have worked on the game.



(and even more than that if it wasn't for uninformed people hating on it for no real reason)
I don't know if this was aimed at me specifically but I would like to point out all I was expressing is the fact that for a gamer of my tastes this has a lot larger potential drawback than benefit. No doubt for some it is a great boon. As always I will buy games individually based on if I think I will enjoy it or not.

Not specifically at you, but you'd be "part of the problem". Everyone who avoided a game because of "optional multiplayer" would be reducing the profit. If they didn't, the developers would earn more on the sales, which leads to a situation where we won't actually have to choose between "single player quality" (of course, this reduction in single player quality might not actually be big enough for anyone to notice even now) and "multiplayer features".

What if a certain multiplayer feature pushed so many extra games that it would more than make up for the cost of adding multiplayer? That would actually lead to the possibility of *more* resources being spent on the single player part.


White Knight Chronicles is also a poor example. It's a game whose main draw is multiplayer action (you shouldn't even be considering the game if you didn't plan on going online). The single player mode is more an introduction to the game, and a fall back option in case you can't find anyone online to play with.
In terms of multiplayer, FFvs13 (for example) would actually be the stark opposite of this. It'd be a mainly single player game, with multiplayer added as a bonus.

Everybody can win on this, don't be so goddamned pessimistic.

[VeloZer0]

White Knight Chronicles is also a poor example. It's a game whose main draw is multiplayer action (you shouldn't even be considering the game if you didn't plan on going online).
I like to give everything a fair shot. Just because I'm pessimistic about something doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility I could enjoy it.


Wouldn't take much more time if they brought in a few programmers that wouldn't otherwise have worked on the game.
You could say the same thing about adding more FMVs and HD graphics but look what happened. I will readily admit that it is possible it won't affect development time in the least, but it is very naive to think that it isn't a distinct possibility.


Not specifically at you, but you'd be "part of the problem". Everyone who avoided a game because of "optional multiplayer" would be reducing the profit. If they didn't, the developers would earn more on the sales, which leads to a situation where we won't actually have to choose between "single player quality" (of course, this reduction in single player quality might not actually be big enough for anyone to notice even now) and "multiplayer features".
One could argue that a having games solely focused on single/multi player would cause them to be specialized in each resulting in a better experience. Once again I'm not arguing that having both in a game is bad, but to make it a requirement is a little ridiculous. Single/Multiplayer content for a game is something that should be based on how well the games core concepts lend themselves to each, not a blanket ideology.


Everybody can win on this, don't be so goddamned pessimistic.
Everybody can win, and everybody could lose. I just like to consider all sides of the issue. Had the response in this thread been overwhelmingly negative I wold probably be pointing out the positives right now.

[Mirage]

Making more prerendered CG movies isn't what makes new games poor, neither is the "shift" to HD graphics. PC games have been in "HD" for like a decade and there's plenty of good games for that platform. What does make the games poor is terrible design choices and overzealous writers who make ridiculous stories and "paint themselves into a corner".

If everybody loses, that's definitely be reflected in the sales figures for their games. That would most likely make them reconsider their strategy. Game development should be a constant process of trial and error. Stagnation is the worst that could happen.

[VeloZer0]

Err sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking exclusively about development time when I brought up HD.

[Depression Moon]

You can say that it doesn't affect you if you only play single player, but it does. All the resources they put into multiplayer content are resources that could have gone to enhancing the single player experience. Adding something like a simple duel mode isn't a huge undertaking, but to include a comprehensive multiplayer experience consumes a large amount of resources meaning the game will either be longer to develop, or have the single player experience compromised due to lack of development time/manpower/budget.


I think it is a different story if ALL games have to include an online component though. With FF13 taking three years and a whole ton of money I can't help but feel that adding these features would have anything other than a detrimental effect on my gaming experience.
On point here, the article does say all games though I don't feel like that will be true, since they are saying a great deal of these are going to feature it then most of this multiplayer stuff is probably going to feel poorly done. I don't really ever see features like these being put into a game unless they really had a plan for it and that definitely doesn't sound like the case here. The result of that could be lost of quality in the single player of the main FF games.

[Mirage]

Err sorry, I should have clarified. I was talking exclusively about development time when I brought up HD.

You gotta remember that the tools for producing HD graphics are getting better too.

It would actually be interesting to see a comparasion between teh development time of for example FF6, FF8, FF12 and FF13

[VeloZer0]

From what I have seen when the tools get better they use them to make better graphics, not to do the old ones faster :D


On point here, the article does say all games though I don't feel like that will be true, since they are saying a great deal of these are going to feature it then most of this multiplayer stuff is probably going to feel poorly done.
Oh I agree. Issuing a blanket every game policy will only ensure poorly tacked on multiplayer content to essentially single player games. As for SE developing more multiplayer content, it is probably a good move. Bad for me, but probably the right way to go.

[Mirage]

Well, using the new tools to make better graphics instead of faster graphics means the development time for the graphics would stay the same, not increase.

[Del Murder]

As long as this doesn't take away from the quality of the games as a single player experience, I don't much care if they add an online element. I'll just ignore it like I always do. I really only care for online games if they are strictly online (like FFXI), and even then I only choose one to get into (like FFXI).

[Raistlin]

As long as this doesn't take away from the quality of the games as a single player experience, I don't much care if they add an online element.

This, exactly. I personally prefer single-player RPGs (except the odd MMO that I get into), but as long as the single-player experience is still good, they can do whatever they want.

[Del Murder]

Some things that come to mind are KH 358/2 days and FF Tactics War of the Lions. Both had some random online elements that I didn't get into but that didn't take away from the main game.

[Jiro]

It'll be interesting to see how this works. Online isn't possible for me anyway, but I look forward to seeing what they come up with and how it changes the game as a whole.

[Jessweeee♪]

FFXIII would have been pretty cool with a FFIX-like co-op. I'd like to see it in future titles.

[Del Murder]

Yes that would have been cool Jessweeee! Especially with the way that game was designed.

I didn't not know FFIX had a co-op. I only thought VI did that. Miriel is playing that right now, maybe I should join her.

[Mirage]

FFXIII would have been pretty cool with a FFIX-like co-op. I'd like to see it in future titles.

And enabling you to do that via the internet instead of requiring people to actually sit besides you is obviously a good feature too. I mean then I could play with like anyone on EoFF instead of just my local friends.

[Jessweeee♪]

I think the only issue with playing online is that you'd have a bunch of people deciding to attack you just to mess around. I know I did that in FFIX xD

[Bolivar]

He's doing so many things wrong. Wada has his development teams hopping on every fad that comes and goes and nearly all of them without FF or DQ in the title fail. They're still where they were at 4 or so years ago.

This is all abstraction, but I agree with Depression Moon and Vel0Zer0 that corporate-devised ultimatums handed down from men in business suits can only hinder game development.

And anyone saying "if they put in this feature, more people will buy it, they'll have more money, they'll put that into bigger budgets, we'll get better games" or whatever, that's actually going against your entire point. Your job as a market actor is to decide if you like something, then buy it if you can afford it. That's it. When you take into account business mechanisms and their theoretical future effect, you're undermining the very idea that you're putting forth.

That's probably why capitalism doesn't work :)

[Mirage]

I think the only issue with playing online is that you'd have a bunch of people deciding to attack you just to mess around. I know I did that in FFIX xD

Uh, no you didn't. I'm assuming you mean FF11 and not FF9, btw.

You couldn't attack other players in FF11 without both players having joined a pvp minigame.

Even in WoW (which is very pvp focused), there are servers without open PVP. I don't see how this would be a problem in any way in a game with online play as an additional, optional feature.

And I'm not taking "business mechanics" into account when i buy games. What i did was counter the other arguments that took business mechanics into their account, saying it budgets would suffer too much from the extra features. I was saying budgets wouldn't necessarily suffer if they thought they'd be able to make money and therefore give their game a bigger budget.

Capitalism works better than currently known alternatives, btw.

[Levian]

In FFIX it is possible to attack the other player, although it's pretty stupid since you'll both get a game over. If you played online with trolls, they might take advantage of that. :p Anyway, I'm sure they'll find a good solution to that, they're not morons after all.

FFV also has multiplayer, Del. :up:

[Mirage]

Online multiplayer in FF9, Levian?
Better stop smoking those socks.

[VeloZer0]

Hm, just thought of an interesting my multiplayer might work on titles like FF9.

Just think of that game, the battle system is crap for multiplayer, and adding co-op would essentially ruin the narrative mark (the high point of the game imo). However, you could easily add some multiplayer side stories in featuring the adventures of Tantalus running parallel to the game. That is one way to slot it into existing content without ruining the single player experience.

Of course it has the side effect of pissing gamers off like me who are now missing out on part of the game's content.

IMO the best way to enjoy a game like FF socially is to just be on voice chat with your friends as you all play through it together.

[Levian]

Online multiplayer in FF9, Levian?
Better stop smoking those socks.

Pssht, if I'm having a sock, then you're having the other one.

I figured the first sentence was about how FF9 would be if it did have multiplayer, and then the second sentence about what she had done in offline multiplayer. You said it yourself, it's not possible to attack other people in FFXI.

anyway, about the topic. Even games such as FFIV DS have some online functionality, it just doesn't have much to do with the main game at all. I'm sure small stuff like that is what Wada is talking about.

[black orb]

>>> Im sending my ninjas to kill that Wada guy..:luca:

[Jessweeee♪]

I think the only issue with playing online is that you'd have a bunch of people deciding to attack you just to mess around. I know I did that in FFIX xD

Uh, no you didn't. I'm assuming you mean FF11 and not FF9, btw.

You couldn't attack other players in FF11 without both players having joined a pvp minigame.

Even in WoW (which is very pvp focused), there are servers without open PVP. I don't see how this would be a problem in any way in a game with online play as an additional, optional feature.

And I'm not taking "business mechanics" into account when i buy games. What i did was counter the other arguments that took business mechanics into their account, saying it budgets would suffer too much from the extra features. I was saying budgets wouldn't necessarily suffer if they thought they'd be able to make money and therefore give their game a bigger budget.

Capitalism works better than currently known alternatives, btw.


Naw, I was talking about 9. I was being silly, mostly! Thinking of times where me and a friend would play FFIX together and attack each other xD

[Mirage]

Well, that certainly is crazy

[Garland]

I don't like relying on others to 100% my games, so I often get irritated when a single player game like FF3 and FFTactics-WoL throws in bonus items/classes (many times the best of such) that require the online function to achieve. If online has no effect on offline, I'll love the idea. I always wanted to take my perfect party and see how it'd fare against others. I don't want to have to exchange people-codes, or do this or that to create my perfect party. We'll see what happens.

[Depression Moon]

>>> Im sending my ninjas to kill that Wada guy..:luca:
Should've used a Shadow sprite.