Every week, IGN's editorial staff gets together to talk about a current hot topic, chosen by you, the IGN Insider reader. Since this is our first week, we chose to talk about a company that's currently on everybody's mind: Square.
We asked ourselves: How important is Square to the success of a gaming platform?
David Smith: Get Final Fantasy on your platform, and you've moved about two million units of hardware to the Japanese market right there. That seems pretty important to me.
Abroad, you might not sell quite the volume of gamers on your platform as you do in Japan, where RPGs and hence Square are a more important genre, but Final Fantasy still sells a hell of a lot over here, and having those big-name RPGs will sell you to the hardcore audience the follows them, people who are serious about games and buy a lot of games.
Put it in simple terms, I got home from the Tokyo Game Show two days ago, where Final Fantasy X drew bigger crowds than any other game. Not even a close contender. Square and Sony were having to cordon off the demo units and make people queue up for them in big rope mazes. Microsoft needed chicks in bondage gear to get people to pay attention to their booth .
Anthony Chau: What does it mean to have Square in your developing pocket? Well if you look at the past, every video game system that had a Square game was very successful. Yes, the Genesis never had Square games, but they had EA in their pocket back then (and more importantly, Madden). With Square's legion of Final Fantasy fans in both the US and especially in Japan, it makes me wonder (cue in harp chords)"what if the Dreamcast had Square as a developer?" Imagine that...
Fran Mirabella: Square is certainly not essential to the success of a home console, or handheld for that matter. Consider that despite Square's support of WonderSwan Color, it only helped sales get off the ground. It's definitely not helping it compete with the Game Boy Advance. And, for home consoles the same holds true. Square draws a big crowd, but, again, it is anything but indispensable. Even Sega -- a veteran hardware company, with hugely popular franchises -- was not enough to support its hardware.
However, taking all this into consideration, it's the combination of developer/publisher support that sells hardware. That said, Square can be considered a powerful element in this grouping of developers and publishers. I think any hardware vendor that has Square supporting them -- currently Sony -- is very fortunate.
So, in sum, I'm saying Square's influence should be considered a potent addition to hardware sales, but certainly not an imperative one.
Dave Smith: FAAAAN-BOY FAAAAN-BOY.
Fran: Yeah, and who's the fanboy saying that Square is the end-all be-all of developer support?
Craig: I think the only draw Square will bring to a system is the possibility of a Final Fantasy game or two -- that's what they're known for, that's what they're good at, that's what people want to see. Just because it's a Square game doesn't mean it's necessarily good -- just look at Bouncer and Driving Emotion Type-S. Beautiful looking games, but they're pretty lousy overall.
Square's got the namesake, and it's a strong one to the die-hard gamer. I don't think the casual gamer's going to care if Square makes a non-RPG for a system...but give them Final Fantasy and you'll get the strong sales.
Peer Schneider:: Well, one could also argue that WonderSwan only has a fraction of the GBA's marketing support. Add to that the fact that pretty much all of the Square WonderSwan games are rereleases of NES titles... I would be curious to see what an exclusive, properly promoted Final Fantasy game for WonderSwan would do to the hardware sales.
Matt Casamassina: How important are RPGs? Well, in Japan at least, the genre is almost integral to the success of a home console. But -- and just to play devil's advocate here, does that really mean a platform cannot be a success without the support of Square? I don't think so.
While Square has proven time and again that its Final Fantasy series is a favorite amongst RPG lovers, it doesn't have a monopoly on the genre. Enix's DragonQuest VII, with more than 4 million units shipped, outsold every Square RPG delivered last year and then some. In fact, the DragonQuest series has always proven tremendously popular. DragonQuest VI for Super Famicom, for example, shipped some 3.2 million units.
An argument could probably be made that Enix and Square *together* have somewhat of a monopoly on the RPG genre. But neither company by itself can guarantee a console's success, nor is either integral to the ultimate popularity of a platform -- especially when we factor in worldwide sales.
Say what you will about Nintendo 64, but it was a success. And it was a success without any Square support, and very little Enix support.
Fran: WonderSwan was merely an example of when Square thought they could make a profound difference for hardware sales. And, as Craig said, Square's main draw is their Final Fantasy franchise. That means that if you're lucky, you'll get three major Square releases during the life of your system. Is that really integral to successful hardware sales? Nope.
Vincent Lopez: I think you all are forgetting one thing -- we're talking about two new launches here, competing with a fairly new system. How important is Square to a system's strength? Very important. How important is Square to a system's *launch*? Pretty critical nowadays, especially in Japan.
Whether you like it or not, Square is the Julia Roberts/Tom Hanks of the gaming realm -- people will buy a system specifically because they know Square will be there. I think it's critical to the success of Xbox and GameCube in Japan, and very important in the US markets, tho obviously not as earth-shattering since US kids pretty much play Final Fantasy, and not much else.
Square is the powerhouse, and the prized fighter to have in your side of the ring. If Nintendo and Microsoft can't get some sort of support from Square in Japan, then they better get some other mega-names to keep people occupied...
Dave Zdyrko: Square is undoubtedly a huge factor in determining the success of a hardware platform in Japan. Case in point -- the Sega Saturn was ahead of the PlayStation in the 32-bit hardware sales up until Final Fantasy VII was released for the system. And even when FFVII was first announced for PlayStation, sales saw a noticeable increase in anticipation of the new Final Fantasy. Saying that Square or FFVII are not important in pushing hardware in Japn, would be like saying "I'm a idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about."
Square, or better yet, Final Fantasy can push a hardware platform in Japan almost by itself. Even in the case of Wonderswan, more units of that sold than would have if it didn't have Final Fantasy. It'll never compete with the GBC or GBA, but history has proven that good games or better hardware doesn't mean shit in the portable market.
Square isn't nearly as important in the U.S. market though -- EA Sports on the other hand...
Tal: Square is definitely a major player -- to console owners. While the Final Fantasy series did well on the PC, it saw no where near the sales figures as say The Sims, Roller Coaster Tycoon, or Baldur's Gate.
One of the questions brought up was "Will Square be a deciding factor in selling more PCs in Japan," and I don't really believe so. The PC gaming market is still very centered in North America and Europe, primarily due to the primary input device -- the keyboard. Developing efficient Japanese keyboards is much more of a factor to getting more people playing games on their PCs in Japan than a particular game developer.
Doug Perry: What's really funny here is how the Nintendo guys are seeing the Nintendo 64 as a success without Square's or Enix's support. That's just pure fanboy denial. Total bunk. The system failed overnight in Japan. Sure the Nintendo 64 did OK, thanks to Nintendo and Rare, but other than that, the Nintendo 64 was a vacuum of sucking power. Especially in the growing market of RPGs. Consider the RPGs on the N64 -- and let's just say for argument's sake that Zelda is in fact an RPG (when we all know it's an adventure game) -- Aidyn Chronicles, Orge Battle, Harvest Moon, Quest 64, Hybrid Heaven... (did I miss anything important?), even dogs wouldn't smell this sh*t. With the exception of Nintendo's own first-party games, those are imminently forgettable. Now consider Dreamcast: If Square had created games for Sega's system, the Sega landscape would have been totally different, and other third-party companies would have joined in, too, because of momentum. Just like EA equals success in sports, Square, in so many ways, equals success in RPGs.
Now consider the vast wealth of RPGs that have continued to make the PlayStation one of the most successful, if not the most successful, console ever -- Final Fantasy VII, FFVIII, FFIX, Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, Final Fantasy Anthology, Front Mission 3, Threads of Fate, Saga Frontier I and II, Parasite Eve I and II, Xenogears, and others. It's not just that they make great games, they make lots of great games. Vagrant Story, Chrono Cross (IGNPSX's game of the year), and Final Fantasy IX helped make PlayStation's FIFTH year a huge success. In four and a half years, the Nintendo 64's track record for RPGs was worse than horrible.
Now consider what would have happened if Square and Enix brought their RPGs to the system, and the landscape changes dramatically. All of a sudden, the Nintendo 64, which performed miserably in Japan, has strong legs. In the US, hardware sales would be higher and so would software. The system, now dead in the water for the last year and a half (and longer in Japan), would be receiving games with the same quality as Chrono Cross, Vagrant Story, Final Fantasy IX, and Enix's Valkyrie Profile.
It's a no-brainer that if you want to have a successful console on a worldwide basis -- especially in Japan -- you need Square, and Enix, on your side. While they may not make great racing or wrestling games, their RPGs are so popular on a worldwide basis that they are unquestioned system sellers. They push hardware, gain perceived and real respect, and they make everyone lots of money, for a long period of time.
History shows that as Square gained popularity from the NES to the Super NES (which were both supported by Square and were successful) and then on to the PlayStation, Square's popularity only grew bigger and stronger. Our IGN Square boards are one of the most popular boards. Square's importance is now more important than ever, and that's why I'm worried that Square might develop for Xbox, because it could make that system a true success, not just here, but certainly, definitely, in Japan. (Oh yeah, and just for the record, if it hadn't have been for Pokemon, Nintendo would have sunk into the pits of doom long ago. Perfect Dark...ferf) So, yeah, it may not be as important for the PC to succeed, but for consoles thus far, Square is an ace in the hole, and represents a sure sign that your system will succeed. (Cans of worms now re-opened.)
Matt: Please Doug, let this "fanboy in denial" tell you a bit about Nintendo 64, as you've demonstrated that you really know nothing about it.
Without Square, and only a breath of Enix support, Nintendo 64:
1. Sold 16 million hardware units in the US and more than 30 million worldwide (as of September 2000)
2. In the US, Super Mario 64, GoldenEye, Mario Kart 64 and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time outsold *every single* PlayStation RPG you've listed in your argument. In fact, the only PlayStation game *at all* to compete with Nintendo 64's top selection sales-wise is Gran Turismo, according to data.
You say Nintendo 64 was an instant failure in Japan. And yet, five years later, some Nintendo 64 titles like Paper Mario and Kirby 64 continued to nab the number-one spot in sales, according to Famitsu reports -- beating out not only PlayStation releases, but PlayStation 2 as well. And in America? Just look at the top 10 sellers for 2000 and you'll see that Nintendo's own releases outperformed all of Square's.
"It's a no-brainer that if you want to have a successful console on a worldwide basis -- especially in Japan -- you need Square, and Enix, on your side." -- Doug Perry.
Thanks for making my point for me, Doug. My whole argument is that you don't necessarily need Square to capture the RPG market... if you have Enix. If Nintendo GameCube never saw a Square release, but received several from Enix, it would still succeed in Japan, especially if any of Enix's RPG offerings were exclusive.
The interesting point I feel I should make here is that if Sony did not have Square, PlayStation probably would have been a failure, or at the very least wouldn't have performed nearly as it has. However, the big difference between Sony and Nintendo is that Nintendo is not entirely dependent on third-party support for the success of its console. Nintendo actually delivers its own products, they are widely regarded as the best in the world, and they've sold more systems than Square could hope to in a lifetime of making software.
Jeremy Conrad: While in the 32-bit generation the Square name wasn't as strong in the US as it was in Japan (it was building strength, though), that is probably going to be different with these next gen systems.
Just look at The Bouncer. Sure, the game isn't the greatest and it even got ripped a new one in quite a few reviews, yet it still sold very well just on the Square name alone and the hype that went along with it. The first couple weeks since the game was released, it was the #1 game on the console sales charts beating out Pokemon Silver/Gold, Paper Mario, and Conker's Bad Fur Day and it wasn't even a Square RPG.
David Smith: Harvest Moon wasn't bad, Doug.
Dave Zdyrko: Nintendo 64 definitely didn't fail. The hardware sales that Matt pointed out show that the system was a success. And from a company standpoint, Nintendo probably sold more software on the Nintendo 64 and made a larger profit than any other software or hardware manufacturer during the last console generation.
But, the N64's success as a console doesn't come close to that of the PlayStation's. Sony has sold nearly as many units just in North America as Nintendo has in the entire world (28 million for PSX in North America to 30 million for N64 worldwide). On a worldwide basis, the PlayStation has sold nearly 50 million more units than the N64 (78 million to 30 million). The N64 did extremely well, but the PlayStation kicked its ass all over the place. Even Nintendo's Minagawa said after our recent interview at TGS that Nintendo was EXTREMELY (his exact word) disappointed with the N64 and was hoping to change things with GameCube.
But, that's all off topic. How much of the PlayStation's success was due to Square's? In Japan, it had a LOT to do with it. As said earlier, the PlayStation was second to Saturn up until Final Fantasy VII. And Enix made its decision to support PlayStation because it did not want to compete against Square on a different platform. The company president said himself that Enix chose to bring Dragon Quest to PlayStation instead of Saturn because he didn't think a system NOT supported by Square could win the console war in Japan. Knowing the Japanese, he was probably being a little humble and underestimating his own product, but it's still a strong point in favor of Square being important in Japan. It's obviously not the ONLY factor, but the company definitely does matter a LOT.
In the U.S. and Europe, though, I think a hardware can succeed and even win the console war without Square's support. Sports games, in my opinion, helped fuel the PlayStation's success in the U.S. and in Europe the impact of a new FIFA or Konami soccer title seems to directly affect hardware sales moreso than a Square RPG.
Tal: If Square developed a new Doug, do you think he would be more popular with Matt?
Matt: I definitely agree with you, Dave. I mean, there's really no denying that PlayStation rocked Nintendo 64 in hardware sales. But I wouldn't necessarily attribute the differential to Square support. Rather, I would suggest that Nintendo 64's lower hardware showing was due to the company's refusal to adopt the CD format. Its decision to stick with cartridges -- more expensive and not nearly as attractive to third-party developers -- hurt it on many levels. First, because of the high costs of mass-producing carts, major third-party support shifted to the less expensive PlayStation format. And second, because cartridges were in turn so expensive to buy from a consumer's standpoint, the would-be audience quickly dwindled in Japan and in Europe.
Were Nintendo 64 to have shipped using a CD format, however, I honestly believe that major third-party support would have been there, and perhaps with the backing of a company like Enix in Japan, the console would still rival the popularity of Sony's.
Chris Sabga: I think I'm the only non-gaming editor posting on this thread...
Is Square essential to a console's success? If you're a diehard RPG fanatic, maybe. If you play anything else, no.
Off the top of my head, the only recent non-RPG I can think of from Square that I liked was Einhander. Other than that, they've produced mostly crap. Bouncer seems to be selling well, and it does have amazing graphics and a good story (for the genre), but other than that, I want to cry at what it could've been. What we get is mediocrity.
Interactive backgrounds and more of a fully realized world (i.e. walk around to get from one place to the next instead of being transported there after seeing a movie) would've made all the difference in the world. Maybe they'll add such features if (when?) they do Bouncer 2.
Square does great RPGs, but they don't own the genre. Nothing is stopping another company from blowing them out of the water with an amazing game.
Doug: It's interesting you mention the Bouncer, Chris, because it's a surprisingly fun multiplayer game, an aspect many folks have overlooked (not you, other other people). But that brings up another point, which is that Square's influence is significant for consoles, regardless of the stature of their non-RPGs.
Maybe Nintendo can survive without Square. In fact, I'm sure it can, because it is so strong with first-party games, but the level of its success won't be as high. As Dave said - and he beat me to the punch - the PlayStation's success worldwide doubles (78 million units sold-through) Nintendo's worldwide number (30 million), while Sony's North American numbers (28.7 million ) are almost equal to Nintendo's worldwide numbers.
In all fairness, if Square didn't publish a single game on GameCube, Nintendo's system would still do well in the next-generation wars. But would it win? I don't know. To win it, Nintendo has to not only increase its stable of second party developers, but to truly support third-parties of Square's stature, if not woo Square itself. I mean, think of it, Matt, you would finally be able to quote someone else besides Factor Five about the GameCube. And think about how many more systems might sell if Square made RPGs for GameCube.
Dave Z: Square definitely isn't the ONLY reason that the PlayStation sold more units than the Nintendo 64. However, I do believe that it helped the PlayStation sell more units in Japan, which helped inspire more 3rd party support for the system in that country, which in turn helped inspire more support for the system on a worldwide basis. If the President of Enix based his decision to support PlayStation with Dragon Quest over other platforms, I'm sure others there felt the same way.
No, Square's not the only factor, nor is it the most important factor (Nintendo's name sells more systems than Square's, in my opinion). Yes, a system can survive and be successful without Square. But, it's better to have them in your corner than not. I'm sure everyone can agree on that.
Brandon Justice: You know, in retrospect, this is really an asinine question. That's somewhat ironic, considering I think I'm the one who came up with it.... At any rate, despite what our surprisingly biased group has lead us to believe in their responses, the question is not "do you have to be make waves in Japan to be a worldwide player," but rather, is "How much of a necessity is Square in the global market?" In this, the answer becomes an issue of basic logic: that depends on your audience.
As Matt and Fran couldn't help but trumpet, Nintendo has and will continue to do just fine without Square's support, both here and abroad via the strength of their key licenses and the oft times idiotically blind loyalty of their demographic. Additionally, Sega managed to carve out its own market in the States with the Sega Genesis that proved quite profitable without the help of Square. Neither may have dominated, but to pretend they were anything close to failures is somewhat naive.
Granted, as the Reverend pointed out in general terms, having RPGs such as Final Fantasy do tend to legitimize a console in the eyes of most fanboys, and as a result, helps sell a whole mess of units, but that doesn't mean you can't survive without them. You merely have to find an alternate focus. Put simply, the presence of Square certainly does not hurt a console's chances of success, however, saying that it is some sort of cultural mandate is nothing more than outright ignorance.
I think the problem here is that many of us seem confused as to the exact nature of "success" in the first place, and I think that is why Doug got a little too excited for his own good. At its root, success does not necessarily equate itself to market dominance, it merely means making money. Consoles have shown that they can do just that without Square, and as a result, despite the difficulty in doing so, it IS possible. Ultimately, it all comes down to a console servicing its primary demographics. If your console has amassed a large number of users who favor the RPG genre, Square will undoubtedly help bring success to your console, but if they could care less about said genre, the same is probably true about Square. 'Nuff said.
Look for the next IGN Roundtable on Monday.