Did Ff16 Flop?

https://www.google.com/search?q=square+multiplatform+news&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_upv=1&uact=5
https://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/library/financial.html

This should be your clue 16 did indeed flop. Rebirth sales unacceptable as well.


Businesswire

It didn't flop, but they expected it to do far better than it did.

They are fixated with growth, so if the games aren't continually doing better than the last it's seen as failure. I know they won't but I wish they could buy out and go private again like Twitter did.

Nothing positive comes from being public.

Underperformer, flop, failure, disappointment

Tomato Potato

Choose your buzzword of choice

"Our shareholders expected us to sell two copies for every PS5 sold"

Eiryl: "see it flopped"

He doesnt understand that these parasites only understand X > Y, where X is next month's sales and Y is the current months sales. Nothing else matters.
You sold 100,000? Do 125,000 next time.
Not only did you exceed 125,000, you did 200,000!
Since you did 200,000, you can do 250,000.

And when you cant reach 250,000, you're a failure.

Except, the budget is determined by the expectation you'll reach 250,000. So, when you don't, it is financially a flop[underperformer, failure, disappointment].

Doesn't mean the game was bad or it was fair to expect it to do better, but doing considerably worse than expectations is flopping.

Rebirth did waaaaaaaaay worse.

Also losses made would include projects that SE closed down which they said would be part of the earnings report.

There's space in between flopping and being a roaring success. It's somewhere in the middle. SE were absolutely fine with initial sales as they made a point of posting the first week sales on twitter, something that they didn't do for Rebirth.

For what it's worth rebirth was built to fail (underperform) so will part 3.

It's a sequel, at BEST it can equal part 1, because anyone who didn't buy 1, wouldn't buy part 2. It has a predetermined cap. and even less should buy part 3. On top of ps5 onry, which was certainly a choice.

Thats a problem with the financial team doling out the budget.

If you budget out X dollars with the expectation to get Y back but instead you get Y*2 back, you're a *** moron if you then blindly budget X*3 dollars with the expectation you'll get Y*6 back.

Its an issue plaguing the entire AAA gaming industry.

SE were giving away Remake free with Rebirth so I expected that double pack to do better than it did.

Exclusivity always drives down sales, combine that with a significantly smaller install base and it was never going to sell as well as Remake. Hence SE's desire to go multiplatform from now on. But we have already been over all of this.

What does multiplat mean anyway, xbox is garbage dead machine nobody cares about, most of their games won't run on switch, it makes more sense to release on pc later to double dip. Are they talking about ps4?

1: lol
2: they already have a multi platform strat, square are and always have been terrible at interacting with customers.
3: lol
4: this might be good, if they are reducing their dependence on stock holders. the more shares they buy back the better

It means they got the results in for taking money to make their games ps5 exclusive and either one or both parties are unsatified with the results.

SE failed to sell me a PS5. They can sell me FFXVI on PC and if I need a better computer, it would signal me to upgrade my current PC. So they still have time to make money on that game. Hopefully they made enough off Sony that they didn't take a real loss other than interest in immediately owning their game. All they have to do to fix that is make games that are good, their perceived job.

Sony on the other hand, no clue. They are a huge company and it's hard to say how much money they are willing to spend in order to accomplish their strategies.

I think the problem here is that PS5 isn't beating switch and PC in terms of install base and Switch 2 may come out soon too.

Keeping their biggest IP on PS5 means they can't effectively grow the fan base and reach the younger audience that is new to their IP.

Even if Sony paid them enough $$$ to cover the dev cost in the long run they'll lose more potential customers.

They already proved that they are capable of making games that meets the quality standard from Rebirth getting high review score. Even with all the padding it is still not a bad game.

Now they just need to increase the size of their target audience.

The game is garbage. Doesn't matter how much people try to blame it on PS5 exclusive. Had this been Elden Ring, or GTA V, the outcome would have been different. Nobody would buy a PS5 to play a shitty version of DMC.

Again there is a massive space between garbage and Elden Ring.

I do hate when people overexaggerate just to get their poor point across.

the real question is, had this been made by an unknown studio how would sales be?

the answer is they would b e near 0.

it's popular IP by a popular studio and still failed to meet exepctations. sales were largely carried by the final fantasy name, just like everything else they've put out recently

Another problem plaguing the AAA industry.


Elden Ring was not PS5 exclusive.

Just like 11. 11 wouldn't have done as well as an MMO if it didn't have the FF IP behind it. Strong IP recognition helps sell games.

Yeah, just like there is a massive space between FFXVI and Elden Ring. Look at how excited Elden Ring fans are for the upcoming DLC. While the garbage games people either don't play, or people who were unfortunate to have bought it don't even go into the DLC.

FROMSOFTWARE announcement of Shadow of the Erdtree generated 10 of millions of views. Garbage DLC generated views on the thousands. We are talking about orders of magnitude difference between the two.

I have been a huge fan of both companies. We all know FF is a much bigger IP than Souls. But Fromsoftware target fans while SE targets Tik Tokers who need to transform into Ifrit 5 mins into the game otherwise they will feel depressed.

Again using the word garbage. It's boring at this point. FFXVI DLC is almost half the price of Elden Ring's DLC (it's an expansion at that price point).

FromSoftware target sweaty nerds who have to brag about their achievements in the online space. Similar to MMO's I guess.

Elden Ring in particular had a massive marketing push and the backing of another sweaty nerd in George RR Martin.

No, not really. If you compare the FF unit sold in 1997-2000 when it was SE's biggest IP, versus Elden ring now, FF has never reached the popularity of souls in all of its history.

Elden ring sold like what? 23 million in one year. It took almost 20 years for FFX(the best selling FF) to reach 20m and that's OG FFX PLUS FFX/X-2 HD remaster. OG FFX never sold more than 10m either. No FF has ever reached the popularity of Elden ring ever.

I haven't check the math but it is possible that FF occupied larger % back in 2000 when gaming community was much smaller. Feel free to math it out. But it was different time with different gamer demographics and preference back then, you can't directly compare IP popularity from 2 different time like that either. If more people just prefer souls more than jrpg, what can SE do to change that? Nothing.



Overall I find the idea of getting butthurt over FF losing to souls ridiculous. FF was a strong IP, but that doesn't mean it should stay on absolute top forever. People's preference changes over time, so popular IP become less popular over time. That's just how creative industry works.

yeah and there's also 0 unbiased people wbo would have ffxi in a top 20 MMOs of all time list.

when asking if ff16/ff7 remakirth is a good game.. if you're talking about if it's a good game for you personally with your nostalgia goggles, then yeah sure maybe. you're definitely entitled to that opinion.

but someone that's being objective saying it's not a good game has a far better argument. especially in the lens of did it flop or not, that's looking at a macro level.

No one in here is being in any way objective or unbiased.

I don't judge game quality using personal preference, it is always possible that one person's preference is biased.

However metacritic score is the average of users and critic. This is a much more fair metrics to use imo.

I am not a fan of using sales numbers as a metric for quality as well. Since sales numbers is affected by target audience size for that specific genre. A less popular genre will sell less than a popular genre. So it isn't fair to compare all games using sales numbers directly.

Yeah, you are comparing From's latest best selling game to a game that came out 20 years ago.

Compare FF10 to King's Field IV. If I remember correctly FF10 sold ~5m in the first year while King's Field IV sold 200k.

One company kept true to its audience while the other went full tik tok. Moral of the story: Elden Ring vs FF16...

Funny thing is both Elden Ring and 16 went Game of Thrones.

Elden Ring with the author and 16 with the style and setting.

FF WAS a larger IP than souls. You're only as funky as your last cut. Bloodborne showed everyone that Souls was getting big enough for something other than direct sequels and pivoting to most platforms with Elden Ring proved it.

More people knew about FF before Elden Ring, but honestly that's no longer one sided and current reputations matter more than past ones.

This was what you said:


You are the only person who compared FF with Souls.

No, Souls is the bigger IP now, deal with it. There is nothing SE can do about it, unless they hire Miyazaki and make the next FF a Miyazaki game. Souls just have a bigger target audience period.