Support NeoGAF

[ethelred]

That's like me saying RE4 did worse on GC than RE1 did on PS1, therefore RE4 is not as successful as it should have been, because of the GC userbase.

!!!

But if you said that IT WOULD BE TRUE! RE4 WAS not as successful as it should have been, and it was primarily because of the GC userbase! We know this because it sold less than RE1, RE2, RE3, RE3. It sold 15% what Resident Evil 3 sold. For fuck's sake, the Dreamcast games sold more than RE4 on the GameCube.

What I was basically saying was that CC sold better than nearly all spin-offs because it had a bigger budget, had the FF7-ness to it, and was promoted like crazy. It has many differences to a typical FF spin-off for these reasons.

I doubt its budget is nearly as high as you might think... but regardless, this is remarkably disingenuous. You attribute its success in part to the game's budget, a factor that went almost entirely into giving it the incredible graphics it did. So sure, we'll say that the amazing visuals helped sell this game. The FF7 fanbase was chomping at the bit for a game that would allow them to explore the world they loved in beautiful, Advent Children-styled graphics. No matter the budget put into any hypothetical DS Crisis Core, though, it never would've achieved those visuals. It never would've sated what they wanted so much. One of the three tripodish pillars of the game's success has been knocked right out from underneath it.

Would it have sold more on the PS2? I don't know that -- the game was pretty clearly designed around the concept of portability, however, and it was done so by a team familiar with portability (as it was made by Square Enix's mobile phone team). But regardless it's irrelevant to the actual debate.

• Charlie stated that the GameCube had no third party success whereby success is defined not as a special olympics-style gimped "you did well for the system" but rather as compared to series performance as a whole.
• Josh said that this is the what defines the difference of market leading versus secondary platforms.
• But Crisis Core, I replied, achieved such sales success on a secondary platform, so no, the argument was not definitional. Whether it could have or would have sold similarly or more on the PS2 is moot. It was released on the PSP and achieved sales success, as a third party game, on the PSP, and in so doing because one of the best-selling Final Fantasy spinoffs in the series history... on the PSP.

Your hypothetical is meaningless.

 

[Grimmy]

Oblivion 360 doubled Oblivion PS3.

Not exactly. Oblivion on the 360 was nearly double the sales of the PS3 version in its first week, true. But th e360 version dropped out of the top 30 the next week if I remember correctly. Ont he other hand, the PS3 version lingered for 3 weeks in the Top 30. So we'll need to see final numbers before we can say who did better.

 

[Parl]

It has almost nothing to do with the overall userbase of DS and PSP in general and a lot to do with the game in specific. FF7 was correctly identified by S-E as their single most popular and marketable FF IP, with a huge amount of built-up desire to play around more in the same world. This appeal is definitely partially linked to the fact that FF7 was by far the most primitive of the 3d FFs and there's a great deal of room to expand on that game's presentation. The PSP provided the opportunity to realize this and present a game with dramatically better presentation than the original game; the DS would not have.

I don't think it's a wild assertion in this specific case to suggest that the PSP iteration is more successful than an "identical" DS game would be, in the same way that the constantly-discussed FF7-remake-for-PS3 is more "relevant" than FF7-remake-for-Wii would be.

But on PS2 the graphical boost would still be there, and based on spin-offs like X-2's sales, I think it's extremely like that CC would have performed much better on PS2 than on PSP. SE probably expected PSP to be a runaway success when CC began development, and may not have gone ahead with development had they have predicted that PSP's userbase and tie-ratio (ie, the PSP software market) would not be so large.

On DS, the graphics would have been worse, and if the game would have sold worse on DS than it has on PSP, then it'd be to that fact and DS's userbase would've rejected it because it isn't graphically great instead of not actually liking the idea of a big-budget FF7 sequel.

 

[ksamedi]

I also highly doubt that SE made a big profit from CC, 3 years development time with a huge team + a big marketing campaign must have cost them more than 20 million. The money they made from CC till now must be somewhere between 15 and 25 million counted in US dollars.

 

[test_account]

Like Josh said, one is making a prediction before the generation has started, the other is making a prediction that a failing system will gain massive momentum in the future, despite previous efforts failing to bring momentum up a fraction of what would be required to regain the number 1 spot.

I think you're missing what im saying. I have never predicted that PS3 will be at number 1 spot. In fact, i'm not making any predictions at all. It started with me saying that PS3 isnt GC. Their faith could be totally different in the end even if their situation is looking the same today. I dont know how the discussion turned out to this actually.

What you're saying is like me saying that these two are on the same line...

1. My PC will still be working tonight.

Am i understand you correctly that you're putting "My PC will still be working tonight" on the same line as "Wii will crush the competition the next generation and PS3 will sell poorly (said in 2004)", saying both has a equally big chance of happening?

 

[Pureauthor]

It has almost nothing to do with the overall userbase of DS and PSP in general and a lot to do with the game in specific. FF7 was correctly identified by S-E as their single most popular and marketable FF IP, with a huge amount of built-up desire to play around more in the same world. This appeal is definitely partially linked to the fact that FF7 was by far the most primitive of the 3d FFs and there's a great deal of room to expand on that game's presentation. The PSP provided the opportunity to realize this and present a game with dramatically better presentation than the original game; the DS would not have.

I think the Japanese market has been rather consistent in showing themselves to not give beans for presentation.

Yes a DS 3D Crisis Core would have looked significantly worse than the PSP Crisis Core that does exists - do you truly believe that would have affected sales negatively? The sell-point of Crisis Core was that it was an FF7 universe game (I wish they'd come up with a name for it like 'Ivalice Alliance') that didn't suck for once, and was the game most closely linked with the storyline of the original FF7.

I don't think it's a wild assertion in this specific case to suggest that the PSP iteration is more successful than an "identical" DS game would be, in the same way that the constantly-discussed FF7-remake-for-PS3 is more "relevant" than FF7-remake-for-Wii would be.

So you believe a FF7 remake for PS3 would sell better than a FF7 remake for Wii?

 

[ethelred]

I also highly doubt that SE made a big profit from CC, 3 years development time

They've made it clear the game wasn't in active development all that time. And in fact it's pretty fucking obvious that they were holding the release because they didn't want that game hitting stores until the userbase was sufficient to carry it (same as what they're going to do with FFXIII). This is further demonstrated by the fact that less than a month after the game's release the team's next project was announced and shown in video form.

with a huge team

The mobile phone game team is now huge? Really? Are you sure? By the same token, I guess the Final Fantasy IX team that went onto to make Crystal Chronicles was fucking gargantuan -- not to mention the ex-Quest Team headed by Yoichi Murasawa that made FFTA and FFT A2.

a big marketing campaign must have cost them more than 20 million. The money they made from CC till now must be somewhere between 15 and 25 million counted in US dollars.

"Hi kids, I'm ksamedi and I just shat out some numbers!"

 

[Parl]

!!!

But if you said that IT WOULD BE TRUE! RE4 WAS not as successful as it should have been, and it was primarily because of the GC userbase! We know this because it sold less than RE1, RE2, RE3, RE3. It sold 15% what Resident Evil 3 sold. For fuck's sake, the Dreamcast games sold more than RE4 on the GameCube.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. RE4 GC was not so successful because it was held back by GC - the investment and team making the game could have made Capcom more money elsewhere, but good for Capcom was that they ported it to the PS2. I guess what I actually mean is directly from the perspective of the publisher.

The question being, ignoring RE4 PS2 for a second, could the budget and team for RE4 GC have been better used elsewhere? Most like, by making it for PS2 as well/instead. Capcom went ahead and did that as RE4 on itself would've been a failure in that the budget and team could've made much more money making a game on PS2 (that game would be RE4, maybe with some minor differences because it's be made with the PS2 userbase and demographics in mind).

With CC, could the money and team be better used elsewhere? I think so. I think that if SE knew that this game would sell much worse than spin-offs like Final Fantasy X-2, they would've made it for PS2/PSP or something else. The game would've been different, maybe not all that much different overall. There's probably a lot of people who saw CC and was like "that looks amazing.. but I'm not getting a PSP just for that" or "that's looks pretty cool, but I don't have a PSP so I can't get it".

 

[ethelred]

much worse than spin-offs like Final Fantasy X-2

You make my brain hurt.

X-2 was not a spinoff and Crisis Core was not "Final Fantasy VII-2."

Crisis Core sold extremely well and it outsold all the Final Fantasy spinoffs in reality except for Final Fantasy Tactics. And with that, I'm done engaging this lame spinning.

Was it 'Final Fantasy VII-0'?

No. It was "Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII."

2. FF X-2 is not a spinoff and cannot be used as an example in these discussions. It is a full FF RPG, with the entire complement of RPG combat, sidequests, locations and NPCs, secret dungeons, 60+ hour playtime, etc. that one would expect from such a title. The sales match that reality, rather than that of a "spinoff" title.

Those points aside. PS2 is off the stage now in Q4 2007. Would it have sold better as a PS2 release in 2006? Possibly, although it's hard to account for how other nearby releases affect the game. But it's also somewhat irrelevant. As with Kingdom Hearts, SE is moving to spread a franchise onto handhelds because the handheld arena is unambiguously the part of the still-living game system market right now with the strongest growth. Given their options in that market, PSP was the right place for this title (as it is the right place for the KH game.)

In fact, SE is probably doing the best job of any developer managing this distinction. They're certainly the only developer I can think of who's released high-effort projects on both DS and PSP that play to the individual systems' strengths (and have been rewarded with the sales to match.)

Exactly so, on all counts.

 

[charlequin]

But on PS2 the graphical boost would still be there, and based on spin-offs like X-2's sales, I think it's extremely like that CC would have performed much better on PS2 than on PSP.

1. Do you see the word "PS2" in my post anywhere?

2. FF X-2 is not a spinoff and cannot be used as an example in these discussions. It is a full FF RPG, with the entire complement of RPG combat, sidequests, locations and NPCs, secret dungeons, 60+ hour playtime, etc. that one would expect from such a title. The sales match that reality, rather than that of a "spinoff" title.

Those points aside. PS2 is off the stage now in Q4 2007. Would it have sold better as a PS2 release in 2006? Possibly, although it's hard to account for how other nearby releases affect the game. But it's also somewhat irrelevant. As with Kingdom Hearts, SE is moving to spread a franchise onto handhelds because the handheld arena is unambiguously the part of the still-living game system market right now with the strongest growth. Given their options in that market, PSP was the right place for this title (as it is the right place for the KH game.)

In fact, SE is probably doing the best job of any developer managing this distinction. They're certainly the only developer I can think of who's released high-effort projects on both DS and PSP that play to the individual systems' strengths (and have been rewarded with the sales to match.)

On DS, the graphics would have been worse, and if the game would have sold worse on DS than it has on PSP, then it'd be to that fact and DS's userbase would've rejected it because it isn't graphically great instead of not actually liking the idea of a big-budget FF7 sequel.

Uh... okay. What point are you trying to make here?

 

[Pureauthor]

You make my brain hurt.

X-2 was not a spinoff and Crisis Core was not "Final Fantasy VII-2."

Was it 'Final Fantasy VII-0'?

 

[Parl]

I think you're missing what im saying. I have never predicted that PS3 will be at number 1 spot. In fact, i'm not making any predictions at all. It started with me saying that PS3 isnt GC. Their faith could be totally different in the end even if their situation is looking the same today. I dont know how the discussion turned out to this actually.

I know you don't predict that. You're saying that as many thought Wii would do crap, but it didn't, the same apply to PS3 now - most think it will continue to do crap, but it could sell end up doing well, just like Wii ended up doing for the past year. But the perception that Wii wouldn't sell well and PS3 would dominate was mainly down to blind faith or most of us not understanding the market very well. Some said PS3 would do poorly because of price - they were right (although it's other things too). We've learned a hell of a lot about how the market works since then.

Am i understand you correctly that you're putting "My PC will still be working tonight" on the same line as "Wii will crush the competition the next generation and PS3 will sell poorly (said in 2004)", saying both has a equally big chance of happening?

It's an extreme example. I'm basically saying that one is less likely than the other.

 

[Parl]

You make my brain hurt.

X-2 was not a spinoff and Crisis Core was not "Final Fantasy VII-2."

Crisis Core sold extremely well and it outsold all the Final Fantasy spinoffs in reality except for Final Fantasy Tactics. And with that, I'm done engaging this lame spinning.



No. It was "Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII."

Okay, it didn't think the definition of spin-off mattered that much. If FF13 was renamed to a name more like that of a spin-off, then its sales would likely be hurt, but not by too much if it was still promoted as much. What I'm saying is that just because CC is/can be defined as a spin-off, it doesn't mean you can go say it sold more than nearly all spin-offs, so that alone makes it a success.

Why do FF spin-offs sell worse than main numbered FFs? It's because they have are worse (in terms of being compelling to the market). If Versus 13 ends up as good as FF13 and is promoted as heavily, it won't sell much worse.

A heavily promoted prequel to FF7, with high production values and good quality will sell amazingly. If you ask the average FF which they'd prefer: A remake to FF3 with slightly better than PS1 graphics or properly made prequel to FF7 with (slightly worse than) PS2 graphics? More will be interested in the prequel to FF, especially after it looks amazing and it promoted to them in its glory. But why didn't more people buy it than FF3 remake? PSP.

It should've been on PS2, unless Square Enix have a specific reason to sacrifice many sales on increasing PSP's hardware userbase by a 5%.

 

[909er]

Not exactly. Oblivion on the 360 was nearly double the sales of the PS3 version in its first week, true. But th e360 version dropped out of the top 30 the next week if I remember correctly. Ont he other hand, the PS3 version lingered for 3 weeks in the Top 30. So we'll need to see final numbers before we can say who did better.

Didn't the 360 version debut at something like 3 times more sold than the PS3 version? Considering that in Japan, first week sales account for most of the games sold, I don't see how the PS3 version could've come anywhere near to catching up.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I know, i didnt say that either. As said, just look at PS2 -> PS3. I dont think any console line has taken this big turn. When i mentioned 8 years of Playstation dominance it was to show that it could be used as a evidence that Wii wouldnt dominate this generation. No other console company had seen the same success as Sony had (~100 million PSX sold and probly like 60-70 million PS2 consoles sold (by 2004 that is)). To think this success would stop with a snap of a finger, so to say, was pretty much unthinkable back in 2004. It was first when the price for the PS3 was announce that people started to think otherwise.

Right, and I was pointing out that there are other factors. And just looking at "YAY PS2 sold a fuckton" isn't going to give you a clear picture. But all of it was circumstantial.

I'm not comparing apples and oranges here. I'm saying that evindences to predict something could be used before a console is released or not.

But there is a difference between circumstantial and direct evidence. There's a reason one's not allowed in court.

From now.. i would say 1-2 years.

I think 3 years into a generation is a bit far, but all right. I'd say middle of next year before it gets to the point of kidding yourself.

Do you mean these predictions?
1. Saying in 2004 that Wii would dominate this generation.
2. Saying that PS3 will see an amazing boost in hardware sale and regain the number 1 spot?

I would say both is pretty much on the same line.

Hmmm... not really
1: a statement based on blind faith in the face of blurry circumstantial evidence. Honestly there was plenty of circumstantial evidence for and against wii domination. But it was all before any direct evidence.

And I don't think people could have honestly predicted (pre-launch) how explosive the Wii's take off would be. And I'd place any such prediction in the blind crazy faith department, even though they turned out to be right so far.

2: a statement based on blind faith in the face of direct evidence.

I don't think the PS3 has no chance, but I think each day that chance gets smaller and smaller, and the faith gets blinder and blinder.

But more importantly, wasn't the real issue that you were saying people who look at this trend and seeing PS3 NOT coming back were the same as people predicting pre-launch the Wii or the PS3 would dominate? Suddenly you twist it to people going against direct evidence.

 

[charlequin]

I think the Japanese market has been rather consistent in showing themselves to not give beans for presentation.

That's a simplistic -- and wrong -- conclusion to draw.

Systems don't sell based on their hypothetical graphical prowess. That's because systems today, and throughout history, sell primarily as vehicles for specific games.

That doesn't mean that graphics don't affect the sales of individual games. Pretty graphics sell games when people see them and go "I want to play (and look at) that some more!" In addition, different game series are affected by this to different degrees. There's obviously still system-wars arguments about both, but there's a general agreement that FF going to a graphically powerful system (as a series that has always emphasized presentation and appearance) while DQ goes to the weakest system (as a series that has always emphasized simplicity ald old-school gameplay) makes sense.

Yes a DS 3D Crisis Core would have looked significantly worse than the PSP Crisis Core that does exists - do you truly believe that would have affected sales negatively?

Absolutely. Look at the detailed feedback from people playing the game -- a lot of the appeal is seeing Zack interact with other characters in detailed and well-directed cutscenes, seeing FF7 locations rendered in beautiful graphics, enjoying the kind of chaotic battle system that improved 3d makes easier to follow, etc. The game has a conflux of distinct selling points -- good gameplay, FF7 universe, beautiful presentation; putting it on DS takes one of those away without bringing anything new to the table.

So you believe a FF7 remake for PS3 would sell better than a FF7 remake for Wii?

I think it's probably the single third-party title with the greatest hypothetical chance of accomplishing that feat. It would have a better chance of it than the real FFXIII compared to alternate-universe-FFXIII announced for Wii in the first place.

Okay, it didn't think the definition of spin-off mattered that much. If FF13 was renamed to a name more like that of a spin-off, then its sales would likely be hurt, but not by too much if it was still promoted as much. What I'm saying is that just because CC is/can be defined as a spin-off, it doesn't mean you can go say it sold more than nearly all spin-offs, so that alone makes it a success.

....what? The name is a good indicator for spinoff-ness, but it's not the only distinguishing characteristic. FF7:CC also is shorter, doesn't have main-series FF gameplay, etc. The game itself is something you can identify as a sequel by sitting down and playing it without knowing the title on the box.

FF7:CC clearly didn't have anything like the budget or staff of a full-fledged FF title, but it performed well, far better than other spinoff titles. How does that make it not a success?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

We can't compare the PSP's Monster Hunter performance with that of the PS2? We can't compare Tales of Phantasia's PSP performance (or, again, the various Tales of the World games) to that of the GBA? Surely those count as market leading platforms as well -- surely, at the very least, the PS2 is?

PS2 was the market leading home console, but is not the market leading portable console now. Some games like Monster Hunter and Animal Crossing seem to be more successful on the go than at home, but I don't think Monster Hunter does better on PSP than on PS2 --> Monster Hunter does as well on PSP as market leader is a valid look. It did better on a secondary portable system than a primary home system, but we don't know what the potential is for Monster Hunter on the primary portable system.

Super Mario 64 did better on N64 than on DS. To draw from that that being on N64 makes some games more successful than being on the market leader would be a big leap.

We can't compare Crisis Core to Crisis Core DS (thank god), but we can look at how every single Final Fantasy spinoff has done on another system. While none leads to a direct comparison, there's still enough broad information about the subseries and its trending to tell us enough -- that Crisis Core, despite being on a secondary platform, had outsold a lot of its brethren and didn't just achieve "good for the system" sales but "great for the series in general" sales.

If you're a publisher or a developer, you're going to have to actually stop and think about whether to put your game on the market leading platform this time around (DS or Wii) or whether you'd be better going with one of the secondary platforms, as unusually enough, they may well be better choices. That was never a consideration the GameCube warranted, as demonstrated by the PS2 rightly being installed as the default, "don't even need to think about it" choice.

So? Where does one draw the line? Final Fantasy is a hellishly big meta-series by this point, where do we draw in general comparisons? Does one compare it to things like Tactics and Crystal Chronicles, which are their own beasts? Does one compare it to other sequel/prequel-ish releases like Revenant Wings and X-2? Does one compare it to other games spun-off from FF VII specifically?

The closest comparisons to make between it and other games would I believe be
X-2: Non-linear direct followup to X, sold more than twice as well as Crisis Core.
Dirge of Cerberus: FF VII spinoff, something as far removed from regular FF as a shooter, sold 2/3 as well as Crisis Core.
Revenant Wings: Portable spinoff to the least successful main FF of the last decade, sold 2/3 as well as Crisis Core.

Crisis Core is a long-awaited hyped well-received prequel spinoff to the most successful Final Fantasy ever. Did it do well? Yes. Do I think those things applied to a DS game or a PS2 game in that system's prime would've done even better? Yes. I think it's a double standard to point out GameCube games that were more successful on PS2, and to prove that this wouldn't be the case with PSP by pointing to exclusives.

!!!

But if you said that IT WOULD BE TRUE! RE4 WAS not as successful as it should have been, and it was primarily because of the GC userbase! We know this because it sold less than RE1, RE2, RE3, RE3. It sold 15% what Resident Evil 3 sold. For fuck's sake, the Dreamcast games sold more than RE4 on the GameCube.

But if we summed the GCN, PS2, and Wii versions... it's still far, far below RE3. The game has been made available to something like 98% of home console gamers in the country and it's still not the success the early games were. Many factors are in play.

 

[Grimmy]

Didn't the 360 version debut at something like 3 times more sold than the PS3 version? Considering that in Japan, first week sales account for most of the games sold, I don't see how the PS3 version could've come anywhere near to catching up.

Errrr no. 1st week 360 version is 40K, PS3 version 27K. Not even double, not to talk about triple!

 

[Pureauthor]

That's a simplistic -- and wrong -- conclusion to draw.

Systems don't sell based on their hypothetical graphical prowess. That's because systems today, and throughout history, sell primarily as vehicles for specific games.

That doesn't mean that graphics don't affect the sales of individual games. Pretty graphics sell games when people see them and go "I want to play (and look at) that some more!" In addition, different game series are affected by this to different degrees. There's obviously still system-wars arguments about both, but there's a general agreement that FF going to a graphically powerful system (as a series that has always emphasized presentation and appearance) while DQ goes to the weakest system (as a series that has always emphasized simplicity ald old-school gameplay) makes sense.

Most the best selling games of the past couple of years have been on the DS, and of those all of them incorporate DS 3D (which is generally considered the ugliest presentation-wise on the market).

Also, since I don't care about graphics, I guess my perception's just coloured. However, I'd like to ask where you got your idea that 'DQ goes to the weakest system' comes from. It goes to the most popular system on the market - that most of the time it's the weakest system is ancillary.

Absolutely. Look at the detailed feedback from people playing the game -- a lot of the appeal is seeing Zack interact with other characters in detailed and well-directed cutscenes, seeing FF7 locations rendered in beautiful graphics, enjoying the kind of chaotic battle system that improved 3d makes easier to follow, etc. The game has a conflux of distinct selling points -- good gameplay, FF7 universe, beautiful presentation; putting it on DS takes one of those away without bringing anything new to the table.

A lot of those are hardcore/nostalgic talking points - I don't see any of these affecting overall sales on a significant basis. Besides, I said earlier that in order to achieve a Crisis Core DS that didn't sacrifice any enjoyability in relation to the Crisis Core we have, Crisis Core DS would probably be a very different game anyway. (What the game would have been like, I have no idea, but theorycrafting is fun.)

Even given that the beautiful presentation of the game is a selling point, I don't consider as a significant selling point. Like I said earlier - the primary reason this game sold is because it is an FF7 spinoff that didn't suck for once.

I think it's probably the single third-party title with the greatest hypothetical chance of accomplishing that feat. It would have a better chance of it than the real FFXIII compared to alternate-universe-FFXIII announced for Wii in the first place.

That's a pretty tall claim, in my eyes.

Also, sorry, but I really need to hit the sack.

 

[Parl]

FF7:CC clearly didn't have anything like the budget or staff of a full-fledged FF title, but it performed well, far better than other spinoff titles. How does that make it not a success?

It is much less fledged out than a main FF title, but also more fledged-out than a typical spin-off and is a prequel to FF7. Obviously lower-budget, less appealing games like FF3 remake sell better because of the RPG market for the DS. CC is a success, given its circumstances.

Still think the game would've sold much better on PS2, so with there being a significant opportunity cost for SE by making this title prequel exclusively for PSP, I consider that a failure. Didn't many say that this game had a lot of the aspects of a mega seller, and despite being on PSP, if it doesn't break a million, it hasn't sold as much as it should.

I'm on the side that more people were interested in playing CC than FF3 remake. The sales didn't reflect that though.

 

[charlequin]

So? Where does one draw the line? Final Fantasy is a hellishly big meta-series by this point, where do we draw in general comparisons? Does one compare it to things like Tactics and Crystal Chronicles, which are their own beasts? Does one compare it to other sequel/prequel-ish releases like Revenant Wings and X-2? Does one compare it to other games spun-off from FF VII specifically?

There is no other beast that is quite exactly like FF7:CC. That means it's a problem if people want to draw one specific comparison and extract all the meaningful data from that, instead of forming a tempered opinion from a variety of sources. With FF7CC, the best thing to do is to look at each of those comparisons and see what it tells us.

When we do that, we see that FF7CC outpaced most of these comparisons: it did far better than the other FF7 spinoff game; it outpaced another specific-mainline-FF spinoff title on the DS; it outpaced a variety of non-specific FF spinoffs like Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon; it outpaced the Crystal Chronicles spinoff family. It did worse that FFT, which is a complicated comparison that I think would be very hard to spin as making FF7CC look bad, and X-2, which is a bad comparison because FFX-2 is a real FF game and not a spinoff. The comparisons come up very well for the game.

 

[ethelred]

CC is a success, given its circumstances.

Crisis Core is a success. Period.

 

[donny2112]

The sales match that reality, rather than that of a "spinoff" title.

Sales do not determine if a title is a spinoff.

Also, I am still very much confused as to why FFX-2 is not a "spinoff." From the title, it isn't anymore a numbered FF than FFVII: DoC, CC:FFVII, or FFXII:RW. Is it just the fact it's a full RPG? If FFXII:RW was a full-blown, 60-hour RPG, would you consider it not a "spinoff," as well?

 

[Parl]

There is no other beast that is quite exactly like FF7:CC. That means it's a problem if people want to draw one specific comparison and extract all the meaningful data from that, instead of forming a tempered opinion from a variety of sources. With FF7CC, the best thing to do is to look at each of those comparisons and see what it tells us.

When we do that, we see that FF7CC outpaced most of these comparisons: it did far better than the other FF7 spinoff game; it outpaced another specific-mainline-FF spinoff title on the DS; it outpaced a variety of non-specific FF spinoffs like Chocobo's Mysterious Dungeon; it outpaced the Crystal Chronicles spinoff family. It did worse that FFT, which is a complicated comparison that I think would be very hard to spin as making FF7CC look bad, and X-2, which is a bad comparison because FFX-2 is a real FF game and not a spinoff. The comparisons come up very well for the game.

Well, that should be obvious. It has much more going for it than most spin-offs. Using that metric, it's a runaway success. But why does that mean that SE still might not be pleased with the investment of resources (financial and human resources)? Because with what this title had going for it, it would have likely sold better on PS2.

Which would've sold better on PS2? CC or the DS sequel to FF12 (maintaining DS graphics)? I say CC by far. If SE believe that they could've made more money with a different approach to this title (ie, making a PS2 version to release alongside it, when all of the hype and anticipation builds), then they're not gonna be totally happy with this success. I'm not sure that a few years ago, when development started, that they thought "we're gonna make a FF7 prequel for Sony's new handheld, gonna put a good amount of effort into it and make it look great, and them promote it heavily and then we can sell it to 25-30% of numbered FF buyers. It'll sell close to a million!"

 

[charlequin]

Most the best selling games of the past couple of years have been on the DS, and of those all of them incorporate DS 3D (which is generally considered the ugliest presentation-wise on the market).

I don't think presentation is the only factor; it's just one that (sometimes) is important. The DS is a juggernaut and (despite what some people would say) can produce games that are pleasant to look at; that means it unsurprisingly has a lot of excellent selling games.

Also, since I don't care about graphics, I guess my perception's just coloured.

Yup.

However, I'd like to ask where you got your idea that 'DQ goes to the weakest system' comes from. It goes to the most popular system on the market - that most of the time it's the weakest system is ancillary.

Perhaps I phrased that badly? In this specific case, DQ did go to the weakest system, because presentation is largely irrelevant to the series and so didn't make a meaningful counter-argument to the DS' unquestioned market dominance.

A lot of those are hardcore/nostalgic talking points - I don't see any of these affecting overall sales on a significant basis.

This is a game whose entire existence and appeal is rooted firmly and singly in nostalgia. You can't even talk about the game's success without acknowledging how much of the game's hype is based on said nostalgia.

Besides, I said earlier that in order to achieve a Crisis Core DS that didn't sacrifice any enjoyability in relation to the Crisis Core we have, Crisis Core DS would probably be a very different game anyway.

At that point I think we're looking at something much more along the lines of FF12RW or FF7BC.

Even given that the beautiful presentation of the game is a selling point, I don't consider as a significant selling point.

I can dig up the first-screenshots-OMG threads, if you'd like.

That's a pretty tall claim, in my eyes.

Do you have an alternate suggestion?

 

[Deku]

It's a success for a spinoff title. But considering it took SE 3 years to come out with it with no new announced sequels planned right away, I think it took a lot of arm twisting and cross promotional funds from Sony for SE to even come out with the title.

The PSP has benefited the most from its release and not SE, who doesnt have many properties on the PSP anyways. I highly doubt it has a smaller budget than say FFIII DS, which sold upwards of 1 million copies to CC's sub 800k sales in Japan.

 

[charlequin]

Sales do not determine if a title is a spinoff.

Er... right, exactly like I said? My argument was that it isn't a spinoff (because of what kind of game it is) and that it sold not like a spinoff (because people recognized that it wasn't.) Cause and effect.

Also, I am still very much confused as to why FFX-2 is not a "spinoff."

Because... it's a sequel? A new game which features the same core gameplay structure, production values, and carried-over themes as its predecessor?

Most series of videogames feature a continuation of the same story, with the same characters, in sequels, but we still consider them sequels, not spinoffs. FFX-2 is exactly the same. It's in every conceivable way a full FF title in scope, presentation, and gameplay.

You can't let the titling influence you here; the game is named in reference to its content, not vice versa. Over in the Tales series, each game entry set in a new world was indicated with a new "of X" in the title, so when they decided to do their first direct continuation of a game's story they could just say "Tales of Destiny 2" and no one would argue anything stupid like "it's a spinoff, not a real Tales game!" FF happened to be using numbers for each new world instead, which left them with no choice but to use the goofy and awkward "X-2" to indicate that it was a full FF game that was a story sequel to FFX.

Square-Enix clearly understands this principle (as do 95+% of consumers); none of the other spinoffs using mainline game characters have a "-2" at the end, because none of them have the presentation and gameplay of a true FF. Same goes for FNC, where the real FF RPG is just "FFXIII," while the spinoffs all have subtitles.

It's a success for a spinoff title. But considering it took SE 3 years to come out with it with no new announced sequels planned right away, I think it took a lot of arm twisting and cross promotional funds from Sony for SE to even come out with the title.

Or they just wanted to let the userbase build a little to maximize sales.

They have what is essentially a full KH title coming to PSP next year; that's a pretty good indicator that SE isn't bailing out of the PSP boat.

The PSP has benefited the most from its release and not SE, who doesnt have many properties on the PSP anyways. I highly doubt it has a smaller budget than say FFIII DS, which sold upwards of 1 million copies to CC's sub 800k sales in Japan.

Again, huge KH project for PSP due out next year. Also, I expect FF7CC's worldwides to eat FF3's for breakfast.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Crisis Core is a success. Period.

Remember, this is the weekly GAF Media Create thread. LanceStern is still alive in spirit; if a game doesn't break some arbitrary number (in CC's case, a million!!!! million selleR!)!!)!) it's not a success or only a minor one.

 

[ethelred]

Remember, this is the weekly GAF Media Create thread. LanceStern is still alive in spirit; if a game doesn't break some arbitrary number (in CC's case, a million!!!! million selleR!)!!)!) it's not a success or only a minor one.

That's a very good point. It would seem our dear permed Lance has been propagating himself quite wildly.

Also, I am still very much confused as to why FFX-2 is not a "spinoff." From the title, it isn't anymore a numbered FF than FFVII: DoC, CC:FFVII, or FFXII:RW. Is it just the fact it's a full RPG? If FFXII:RW was a full-blown, 60-hour RPG, would you consider it not a "spinoff," as well?

Actually, the title does the exact opposite of what you claim. The title of FFX-2 very much does give the impression that it's a numbered FF. It is Final Fantasy X-2. No kooky subtitle. Just X-2. The two implies that it is a direct part of the main series.

And as Charlie noted, Square Enix recognizes that this is so -- it's the only game so far to be named in such a fashion. As to Revenant Wings, well, we can ask the people who made the game:

Yokoyama and Torishima's details on the storyline were equally vague. The time frame of Revenant Wings in relation to the main FFXII story isn't important, explained Torishima, adding that the game's timeframe is merely an era when Vaan and Panelo were air pirates. The story of XII was, he admitted, that of Vaan and Panelo getting caught up in a storyline that was already taking place with Ashe and the other characters. In Revenant Wings, Vaan has the main character role all to himself.

Yokoyama added that the game isn't a sequel to FFXII. It's not, for instance, FFXII-2.

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

SALES AGE IS TEARING ITSELF APART

I LIKE COOKIES

 

[jj984jj]

That's why I didn't compare it to a single specific Final Fantasy spinoff, because it's not directly comparable to any one of them. However, we can look at the entire spinoff subseries as a whole and still see Crisis Core coming out ahead -- again, barring inclusion of Tactics. What if it was a multiple year in-house effort? Well, Crystal Chronicles and Dirge of Cerberus were. What if it was an action RPG? Well, Crystal Chronicles and Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates were. What if it got higher review scores? Several have.

It's not fair to compare Crisis Core to any one spinoff but we can sure as hell look at how it's sold more than all of them except one and come to the conclusion that it performed pretty fucking well.

Well that's my question, how can you look it that way to tell so bluntly say how much better or worse it would have performed on the DS or even the PS2? The success of Crisis Core doesn't help you prove that "These sales are really good comparable to how this game/series would have done/did do on a market leading platform." All of these spin-offs were a success or a failure for entirely different reasons and we don't know how much better Crisis Core would have done had it been on a market leading platform, so I think it is a bit flawed to create a subset of the FF series where CC is the second best selling game just to tell us that the PSP differs from past secondary platforms.

 

[Deku]

Well if you configure your conditions just right you can make pretty much any kind of argument.

I'm not sure what there is to argue outside the fact that CC sold well and is a success.

Do people gueninely need to have their E-egos propped up by affirmation that the only major SE title on the PSP is a 'big success' and not just a 'success'. Or similarly, that it is a great spin-off success and not a success among equals?

There are FF spinoffs that went solo, Mana in the past and the second and third titles blow CC out of the water as with most other spin offs, or right, excluding Tactics.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

Remember, this is the weekly GAF Media Create thread. LanceStern is still alive in spirit; if a game doesn't break some arbitrary number (in CC's case, a million!!!! million selleR!)!!)!) it's not a success or only a minor one.

But it's exactly the opposite that I've been arguing. Since every case is different, it's silly to say that we can look at each game outside of context and claim that arbitrary milestones Crisis Core reached validate it as "success" while others that did less are "failure".

 

[charlequin]

All of these spin-offs were a success or a failure for entirely different reasons and we don't know how much better Crisis Core would have done had it been on a market leading platform

Right, but we can use basic reasoning to form an idea. The concept that presentation is a part of FF7CC's appeal (and part of the reason it appeared on PSP instead of DS in the first place) is pretty straightforward.

so I think it is a bit flawed to create a subset of the FF series where CC is the second best selling game just to tell us that the PSP differs from past secondary platforms.

This has all gotten pretty far afield from where this whole conversation started. I'm not trying to assert that PSP is unique; just that it's a contrast to GCN.

But it's exactly the opposite that I've been arguing. Since every case is different, it's silly to say that we can look at each game outside of context and claim that arbitrary milestones Crisis Core reached validate it as "success" while others that did less are "failure".

Looking at FF7CC in context (that is, the context of as many different comparable titles as we can) is what tells us it's a success. Similarly, looking at ToS and RE4 on the GameCube in the context of comparable titles is what tells us that they were failures.

 

[donny2112]

Because... it's a sequel?

Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII is a prequel. The fact it is in direct line with a numbered Final Fantasy doesn't warrant it being considered a non-spinoff according to you, so why should that make a difference to FFX-2?

A new game which features the same core gameplay structure, production values, and carried-over themes as its predecessor?

Again, if FFXII: RW was a true RPG along the lines of FFXII with the only difference being lower tech due to being on the DS, would it be worthy to be considered a non-spinoff despite its name?

Most series of videogames feature a continuation of the same story, with the same characters, in sequels, but we still consider them sequels, not spinoffs.

Based on that, would CC:FFVII be better considered a prequel than a spinoff instead of both?

You can't let the titling influence you here; the game is named in reference to its content, not vice versa. Over in the Tales series, each game entry set in a new world was indicated with a new "of X" in the title, so when they decided to do their first direct continuation of a game's story they could just say "Tales of Destiny 2" and no one would argue anything stupid like "it's a spinoff, not a real Tales game!" FF happened to be using numbers for each new world instead, which left them with no choice but to use the goofy and awkward "X-2" to indicate that it was a full FF game that was a story sequel to FFX.

Could Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII been accurately called FFVII-0/2 using that logic or does the fact it is an Action RPG vs. a regular RPG dissuade that?

Spoiler

Personally, I think this "Square-Enix meant FFX to be a full FF, so they gave it a -2" when they gave other games set in the same universe a subtitle (i.e. FFXIII Vs.) to be absurd. I don't recall Square-Enix doing "<#ed FF>: subtitle" up to that point, but if they had, I could see FFX-2 being given the title FFX: <something> very easily.

Square-Enix clearly understands this principle (as do 95+% of consumers); none of the other spinoffs using mainline game characters have a "-2" at the end, because none of them have the presentation and gameplay of a true FF.

And if they did do one set in the same Universe with all the same bells and whistles, do you still think they would give it a "-2" or give it a subtitle like every other game set in the same Universe that they've done over the last couple of years?


Obviously, I have yet to be convinced as to a legitimate reason why FFX-2 should be considered a main, numbered Final Fantasy, when it clearly is not from the title alone. If Square-Enix did it today after having done sub-titles on FF games in the same Universe so much over the last two years, I have zero faith that they would've named it "-2" versus using a sub-title. Is there some interview where they lay down this "master plan" on how to appropriately title Final Fantasy games?

Actually, the title does the exact opposite of what you claim. The title of FFX-2 very much does give the impression that it's a numbered FF. It is Final Fantasy X-2. No kooky subtitle. Just X-2. The two implies that it is a direct part of the main series.

Same comments as above.

And as Charlie noted, Square Enix recognizes that this is so -- it's the only game so far to be named in such a fashion. As to Revenant Wings, well, we can ask the people who made the game:

Maybe because he's using it for an example? That doesn't mean that a full-fledged sequel created today would still use the "-2" moniker. I think they just didn't have any precedent on the matter for mainline Final Fantasy games and hadn't done FF#:subtitle up to that point for a game in the same Universe.

Spoiler

This is stupid. I don't see us going anywhere with this short of someone posting an interview with Square-Enix saying "We only use the -2 addition on real sequels and everything else is a spinoff." No, the quote ethelred posted does not say that, FYI.

If you want to keep going around in circles, I'm game, though.

 

[charlequin]

Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII is a prequel. The fact it is in direct line with a numbered Final Fantasy doesn't warrant it being considered a non-spinoff according to you, so why should that make a difference to FFX-2?

Don't be daft. FFX-2 is the exact same kind of game as FFX; FF7CC is not. That is the only criterion in question.

Again, if FFXII: RW was a true RPG along the lines of FFXII with the only difference being lower tech due to being on the DS, would it be worthy to be considered a non-spinoff despite its name?

Uhhhh... yes? But in that case, it probably would have been called "FFXII-2," a title with a meaning so obvious that Toriyama uses it in that interview to implicitly designate a hypothetical full RPG sequel to FFXII and show that FFXIIRW is not that game.

Could Crisis Core: Final Fantasy VII been accurately called FFVII-0/2 using that logic or does the fact it is an Action RPG vs. a regular RPG dissuade that?

Are any mainline FF games action RPGs, or are they all regular RPGs? Is FF7CC an action RPG, or a traditional RPG in the style and scope of a mainline FF title? This is not a difficult question to answer.

Personally, I think this "Square-Enix meant FFX to be a full FF, so they gave it a -2" when they gave other games set in the same universe a subtitle (i.e. FFXIII Vs.) to be absurd.

Right, because you have an agenda here that's guiding your responses, instead of actually looking at the matter logically.

I don't recall Square-Enix doing "<#ed FF>: subtitle" up to that point, but if they had, I could see FFX-2 being given the title FFX: <something> very easily.

Uh... right. That's totally obvious. "If the naming conventions of the series were different, the games would have different names!" Well clearly.

I'm not attaching any special significance to "-2" beyond the fact that it was chosen to communicate a specific fact: for the first time, a full-fledged FF game was a story-sequel to a previous game instead of a story set in a new universe. The name was chosen as a way of indicating this to people, and it worked: the game sold like a mainline FF title, not like a spinoff. It's only since people have wanted to downplay FF7CC's sales that I've seen this "X-2 was really a spinoff" argument even come up.

And if they did do one set in the same Universe with all the same bells and whistles, do you still think they would give it a "-2" or give it a subtitle like every other game set in the same Universe that they've done over the last couple of years?

They would blatantly and obviously give it a "-2," because they would want to reap the increased sales that come with a full-fledged sequel and using the same terminology they'd previously used is a really straightforward way to communicate that.

Obviously, I have yet to be convinced as to a legitimate reason why FFX-2 should be considered a main, numbered Final Fantasy, when it clearly is not from the title alone.

Have you played the game? If not, you don't know enough to even be participating in this conversation; if you have, you would have to be completely stupid not to realize what separates it from FF7CC and every other spinoff, and your whole argument is in bad faith.

This is stupid. I don't see us going anywhere with this short of someone posting an interview with Square-Enix saying "We only use the -2 addition on real sequels and everything else is a spinoff."

So... the fact that 100% of FF spinoff games which feature different gameplay than the main series have subtitles, while 100% of FF direct sequel games that have the same gameplay as the main series have sequel numbering, doesn't count for anything?

 

[Jokeropia]

Not exactly. Oblivion on the 360 was nearly double the sales of the PS3 version in its first week, true. But th e360 version dropped out of the top 30 the next week if I remember correctly. Ont he other hand, the PS3 version lingered for 3 weeks in the Top 30. So we'll need to see final numbers before we can say who did better.

In the latest numbers we got, Oblivion 360 was at 69,309 and Oblivion PS3 at 31,284. And this is by Famitsu where we get data for the full top 30. The PS3 version will not catch up.

 

[Deku]

But it's exactly the opposite that I've been arguing. Since every case is different, it's silly to say that we can look at each game outside of context and claim that arbitrary milestones Crisis Core reached validate it as "success" while others that did less are "failure".

This whole thing strikes me as LanceStern -lite argumentation. Granted people are emotionally vested in certian franchises and want to make 'exceptions and arbitrary sales cut offs. I do not see anything exceptional about CC's performance.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

So... the fact that 100% of FF spinoff games which feature different gameplay than the main series have subtitles, while 100% of FF direct sequel games that have the same gameplay as the main series have sequel numbering, doesn't count for anything?

What about Twelve?

Nothing about that gameplay is similar, or what about Eleven?

Both are mainline FF, both play nothing like other FF's before them. And both are labelled with the numbered moniker.

I see where donny is going with this, do you?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I look at Final Fantasy X-2 both ways depending on which angle my head is turned, but here's the way things were talked about when we first started hearing about it, more than a year before release.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/2868102.html?tag=result;title;8

Square plans FFX spin-offs
Square talks about expanding Final Fantasy X.

By Ike Sato, GameSpot
Posted May 28, 2002 5:17 pm PT

According to Mainichi Interactive, Square plans to release two Final Fantasy X spin-off games for the PlayStation 2 this fiscal year in Japan. Though the official titles are unknown and the details are scarce, it was revealed that the games have been code-named "Yuna version" and "Rikku version." Square expects that both of these spin-off titles will expand the Final Fantasy X universe, and they are both being developed by the core members of the original team, using the same game engine and tools. We'll have more details on these interesting developments as they surface.

FFX-2 is the exact same kind of game as FFX

Different battle system. Different skill learning system. Different in linearity.

Are any mainline FF games action RPGs, or are they all regular RPGs? Is FF7CC an action RPG, or a traditional RPG in the style and scope of a mainline FF title? This is not a difficult question to answer.

Well, XI and XII isn't exactly regular.

It's only since people have wanted to downplay FF7CC's sales that I've seen this "X-2 was really a spinoff" argument even come up.

It's older than that. At the time of X-2's release, there weren't any other direct sequels or spinoffs to compare it to. Now there are.

 

[charlequin]

This whole thing strikes me as LanceStern -lite argumentation. Granted people are emotionally vested in certian franchises and want to make 'exceptions' I do not see anything exceptional about CC's performance.

This whole conversation has gotten convoluted and twisted in knots, but I don't suppose you'd like to describe your specific viewpoint instead of just throw out really broad judgments?

Personally, I'm a lot less invested in FF7CC (a game I haven't played for a system I don't own) than I am in certain pretty basic sales facts that people have been disputing: FFX-2 is a "real" FF (not a spinoff); GC was a notably poor system for third-parties but not all non-market leader systems are the same way (though PS3 is currently leaning the same way); the PS3 is actually sucking it up on its performance, not just "getting started slowly"; Nintendo doesn't put as much marketing oomph behind 3rd party games as MS or Sony.

I know that every one of these claims is going to piss someone off; some because they question the myth of unqualified Nintendo dominance (in favor of the reality of qualified, but still pretty fucking huge, Nintendo dominance) and some because they call in question the idea that PS3 has a chance to be anything but a severe also-ran in Japan. But I still think they're all essentially reasonable extrapolations from the factual records we have to work with here.

What about Twelve?

Nothing about that gameplay is similar, or what about Eleven?

The gameplay of an RPG is not limited to the combat system. FFXII follows the basic model of an FF very closely: towns to journey between, NPCs to talk to, cinematic cutscenes, final bosses, sidequests, a bajillion different items and spells, brand new character customization systems, the works. All of this is essentially the same between FFXII and previous games; the fact that the combat system differs isn't really any more of a change than between, say, FFIX and FFX.

You're correct to say that FFXI really isn't much like the rest of the main series. You can pretty much chalk that up to the marketing plan: FFXI does have a full plotline (complete with CGIs) on par with any other main series entry, and S-E wanted people to feel like it was a main entry so they would feel more compelled to play it -- something that clearly didn't work out for them completely, but could conceivably have increased the sales to some degree. (This would be why messageboards have arguments all the time where people say "FFXI should be called 'Final Fantasy Online.'")

Anyway, I'm not arguing that the names magically make something part of the series or not; I'm saying that they're chosen to communicate info. In X-2's case, the name says "this is a full FF, just one that's a story sequel to another FF." Consumers agreed with that and the vast majority of people who bought FFX also bought X-2. FFXI's title tries to say "this is a full FF, even though it's actually an MMO"; people didn't agree with that nearly as much.

 

[donny2112]

Most of your previous response is the same kind of stuff said before, and since it was entirely unconvincing to me then, it is entirely unconvincing to me now.

So... the fact that 100% of FF spinoff games which feature different gameplay than the main series have subtitles, while 100% of FF direct sequel games that have the same gameplay as the main series have sequel numbering, doesn't count for anything?

There's only one (according to you), and it was the first of its kind for a direct continuation of the storyline in a Final Fantasy universe. Therefore, no, it is not convincing. Produce an interview with the Final Fantasy commandments with one being "Thou shalt not name a true sequel anything but <FF#>-<#>" or have them create a sequel with the exact same engine gameplay and name it like FFX-2, and I'll probably be convinced. If Square-Enix produces a sequel with the same engine and gameplay and doesn't name it <FF#>-<#>, I don't think you'd be convinced, though. :lol

I see where donny is going with this, do you?

Care to enlighten me? :lol

 

[Thunder Monkey]

Care to enlighten me? :lol

charlequin is a blind dog chasing a snausage that is in actuality his own tail?

 

[charlequin]

There's only one (according to you), and it was the first of its kind for a direct continuation of the storyline in a Final Fantasy universe.

Er, yes. I'll ask again: have you played FFX-2? The fact that it is the same kind of game as other mainline FFs is self-evident from doing so. There was a lot of news coverage on both sides of the Pacific about the fact that the game was the first true story sequel in FFdom, which you should be able to find pretty easily if you dig a little. Here's a preview of the game that mentions the fact.

Produce an interview with the Final Fantasy commandments with one being "Thou shalt not name a true sequel anything but <FF#>-<#>" or have them create a sequel with the exact same engine gameplay and name it like FFX-2, and I'll probably be convinced.

I'm not saying this is some kind of magical hard and fast rule; it's just marketing. I instantly knew what kind of game "Final Fantasy X-2" was from the title, and I set my expectations accordingly; so did a lot of other people.

Is it possible that the next time this happens (assuming S-E does ever make another real RPG sequel to a mainline FF) they'll decide to market it differently? Sure. I'm not a fortune teller, I can't OMG SEE INTO THE FUTURE, just make extrapolations from known facts. If they made such a game and called it "FF6: The Returners" (or whatever), I think it'd be a bad call, and would probably hurt the game's sales, but I think S-E makes bad to terrible decisions all the time; it wouldn't be a first.

If Square-Enix produces a sequel with the same engine and gameplay and doesn't name it <FF#>-<#>, I don't think you'd be convinced, though. :lol

Convinced... of what? I would be convinced that someone made a different marketing choice (and maybe that my logic here wasn't as sound as I thought), yes. I wouldn't be convinced that FFX-2 and FF7CC are worth comparing in sales because the true difference is in their gameplay, scope, and presentation, not their names; the names are just labels that (in my opinion, and apparently S-E's) were chosen to reflect that difference.

 

[test_account]

I know you don't predict that. You're saying that as many thought Wii would do crap, but it didn't, the same apply to PS3 now - most think it will continue to do crap, but it could sell end up doing well, just like Wii ended up doing for the past year.

Yep, that is exactly what i ment I didnt say that it will happend just to underline that, but i dont think that the chances for it to happend is completely impossible.

But the perception that Wii wouldn't sell well and PS3 would dominate was mainly down to blind faith or most of us not understanding the market very well. Some said PS3 would do poorly because of price - they were right (although it's other things too). We've learned a hell of a lot about how the market works since then.

Indeed, but before the PS3 price was announced i dont think many predicted the current outcome of PS3 due to PSX and PS2s incredible success and Nintendo's rather lack of success with GC, not even the biggest market analysts/knowers. Therefor i wouldnt exactly call it blind faith based on those things. However, the market has changed like this before, like when Playstation came and outsold N64 and Saturn. So for it to happend again with Nintendo wasnt impossible indeed, just not many (or any at all?) thought it would happend now.

It's an extreme example. I'm basically saying that one is less likely than the other.

Ok, fair enough.

 

[Phoenix Down]

im back.. who in here is talking silly?... who do i need to str8'n up?

 

[Thunder Monkey]

im back.. who in here is talking silly?... who do i need to str8'n up?

You can str8'n me up anytime.

*cough*

 

[ethelred]

This whole thing strikes me as LanceStern -lite argumentation. Granted people are emotionally vested in certian franchises and want to make 'exceptions and arbitrary sales cut offs. I do not see anything exceptional about CC's performance.

What Lance Stern did is set arbitrary, random numbers which served a flat criteria by which to judge large swaths of games regardless of outside context. Each game was held to the same random, illogical standard... except when they weren't. And when they were or were not was completely guided by irrational whim. X, Y, and Z games would need to sell 300,000 copies to be judged a success even if they fall within genres or series where such a benchmark would be exceptional, not "average" or "barely acceptable," even when there are only a scarce number of games every year that reach that number.

Then other games, like It's a Wonderful World or ASH were just miraculously successes despite all outside qualifiers indicating they were not. For those, whimsical fancy decreed that the 300,000 rule be tossed aside in favor of a "100,000 and you're in" guideline. Because both of those games sold (or in ASH's case, will sell) 100k, that makes them raging successes -- despite, er, the fact that prices were slashed massively to get there and retailers and publishers considered them disappointments and they failed to sell up to series or genre standards.

My position, and Charlie's position, is not Lancesque. It is completely contextual. The argument is that a game must be looked at through the prism of the closest possible direct comparison we can make. If multiple games are available, then look at as many comparisons as you can. The more the merrier. The more comparisons that can be drawn, the better we can evaluate the sales of a particular game. Honestly, the only criteria that matters to a publisher is "Did we make a big profit on this and build the foundation for future profit?" We don't know enough about the costs involved in Crisis Core to answer the first prong, but the second we can note is affirmatively a yes, because Square Enix clearly intends to build upon the success they achieved through Crisis Core with the high profile Dissidia and KH: Birth by Sleep games.

Contextually, everything else we look at tells us Crisis Core was a successful game. Do we look at its sales in absolute numbers? If we do that, we see only a handful of games selling 800,000 copies in a year. In an absolute sense, the numbers are impressive. Do we look at Crisis Core's sales in a relative sense by system? It's the third best selling PSP game, so it succeeds there as well. Do we look at it in a relative sense versus other comparable games within the same series? It passes here as well -- only FFT has performed better when looking at the breadth and depth of Final Fantasy spinoffs, which is a pretty diverse lot and Crisis Core has exceeded almost all of them.

Anyone who can look at this and judge it to NOT be a success is either a flipping moron who has no business in any sales analysis thread, or is pushing an agenda. I'm not fond of either possibility. Now, no one here has said, "Wow, Crisis Core is the most legendary seller ever! I'm astonishingly blown away!" so shove that little strawman back wherever you claimed it from, Deku; it's not pertinent to the conversation actually taking place.

It's a success for a spinoff title.

Well no shit -- it IS a spinoff title. Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker is a success as a spinoff title, compared to other spinoff titles. If you set its sales down next to Dragon Quest VIII it's going to come out as a flopping failure. But that's not a very reasonable way to engage in an analysis of the situation. Similarly, people making such dishonest comparisons with regards to Crisis Core ("but it only sold to 30% of the Final Fantasy userbase!") really need to stop it.

I'm not sure what there is to argue outside the fact that CC sold well and is a success.

I'm not sure either, and yet there are some people here very invested in the idea that it needs to be classified as a failure despite all evidence and rationality to the contrary. I wonder why that is.

 

[charlequin]

My position, and Charlie's position, is not Lancesque. It is completely contextual.

Pretty much. I don't think FF7CC is a wild, runaway success, but it is a success. S-E's publishing strategy on handhelds so far is to put games where they seem best suited, then push the envelope so they look about as good as they possibly can (S-E is responsible for some of the most beautiful games on both PSP and DS); they are also one of the only publishers that's seen success on both, which I think points to this as being a pretty great strategy.

I know that a lot of people are resistant to the idea that FF7CC is a success because they think it has to imply that S-E will shift support from the DS, in the same way that others downplayed FF3's success last year. I don't think that's true, though; I think we'll keep seeing some high profile projects like KH:BfS on PSP, tons of cool games like FF4, FFTA2, DQ remakes, etc. on DS, and both S-E and handheld gamers will come out winners in the end.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I'll ask again: have you played FFX-2? The fact that it is the same kind of game as other mainline FFs is self-evident from doing so.

It was playing it that made me begin to think of it as something different. I was expecting it to be structured like other FFs, but with recycled assets. Being mission-based with a percentage counter, having pretty much the entire world map accessible from the get-go, a branching story, and the very lighthearted nature surprised me.