Did Ff16 Flop?

With a company like SE that is relying more on existing fanbase than on amazing products, an underperforming flagship release is going to impact the following releases as well. They aren't entirely unrelated.

FF16's problem is that large amount of game were sold to non-target audiences because of direction change, if you argue that FF16 affected FF17 sales it may make sense. It is possible that people who wants "deep jrpg" were pissed off from FF16 and never want to buy FF17 again.

it is literally impossible for that to to happen on Rebirth though. Rebirth target audience is extremely precise. It sells to people who played remake and liked them, but not non-remake fans. If you played remake and love it, it is very unlikely that FF16 stops you from buying Rebirth.

And vice versa: If you played Remake and dislike it, you probably won't buy Rebirth too. You won't even give it a try even with words of mouth from fans. You'd know for sure that it isn't your game.

I would say Rebirth's poor sale is just the result of target audience being incredibly small. You need to play the first game, like the first game, AND own a PS5 to pre-order the game. That's really what's killing the initial sales imo.

So if you check the last year of value instead of only the last 5 days that just happen to immediately follow a potentially controversial financial and business related decision of SE distancing themselves from Sony, you get a clearer picture instead of one muddled by bias and financial ignorance.



16's release saw SE stock hit the highest it has been in the last year. It held a consistently higher than average value for 2-3 months after its release, and drop-off didn't happen until the relatively dead months of August/September/October (which coincides also with the lukewarm launch of a new SE mobile game as well as cringe statements from the CEO regarding AI and NFTs). It spikes again a bit for Rebirth's release followed by a steady decline and, now, following the announcement of leaving the safety of Sony's skirt and announcing the cancelation and loss of projected sales (aka funny money that didn't even exist yet) in the 140B range, there has been a precipitous drop-off. It is both foolish and disingenuous to attribute this dip to 16 OR Rebirth in any meaningful way while ignoring two major pieces of news that just broke to shareholders and the public within the last week.

Can also look at SE's primary exchange filing, which matches each event similarly:

Stating that something is a fact doesn't make it a fact. You think you know what goes behind closed doors of these companies but you don't. All that we know, even from their statements is that, while ff16 wasn't a complete failure, it didn't become as much of a hit that they were expecting it to.

They forced a release of FF-Rebirth to try to make up for the blood loss and it ended up back-firing.

Final Fantasy 7 (and tactics) are my favorite game of all time. Can you imagine how hyped I was for the game? I didn't even finish the remake and didn't even buy rebirth. I didn't even dislike the combat system. I found the whole thing just soulless. Every change they made turned out to be a downgrade.

Final Fantasy 13-16 are all bad. The dudes are sitting on IPs like Valkyrie Profile and they launch a *** money-grab mobile game for it. They turn their main franchise into a DMC game. Lmao...

You gotta inhale the purest copium not to see that this is not sustainable.

Laughed at the opinion that they "forced a release of rebirth." FF16 had zero impact on Rebirth. Completely different development teams. You are just making ***up again. But thanks for telling us all you didn't even play the games. Not that anyone was taking you seriously to begin with.

Yeah, it's pretty common to see a company releasing two extremely popular games back to back like that.

Alfania hasn't played FF16 and yet I haven't seen anything he said that discredited his opinion. He hasn't played the game but he can already tell he will like it.

I have played FF7-Remake (but I get it, you can't read properly) and it was so boring that I ended not finishing it. Unlike the original Final Fantasy 7 that I have finished multiple times, and FF11 that I have been playing for 20 years.

It's the company job to make the game enjoyable so that people get hyped to finish them. A game is not a job, you don't need to wait 8 hours to clock out.

Your entire argument here is that you personally dislike their newer games, therefore it is not sustainable.


Which is totally unrelated. Those are 2 different things.

They choose to make games for a different group of people, that's it. That has nothing to do with sustainability.

Almost a full year separated their releases, and yes, they were completely unrelated. And again, thanks for admitting you haven't played the games.

And I didn't even wish them harm. I realized the old timers weren't the target audience anymore.

But it backfired. Their lame excuse got debunked by BG3 which has been extremely successful.

Nobody needs to argue any further tbh. The company launches two major games and the ship catches on fire.

Like what I said, you gotta be extremely high on copium not to see that the products weren't well received.

Godfry for the last 3 pages:

Now hes gonna post the same garbage about youtubeing a Moonveil build for the 17th time

If Rebirth isn't well received then people will spam negative reviews on every website, where are they? I read people's opinion in gaming community everyday, I haven't seen armies of people attacking Rebirth. Just some minor complaints about mini games and story.

Even on this thread we have one person saying Rebirth is fantastic.

Again target audience being small =/= poorly received.



It is like the second time that I said this already. BG3 didn't target old BG2 fans who wants old style BG games. Honestly pillar of eternity feels much closer to BG2 than BG3. BG3 doesn't feel like BG2, at all.


BG3 debunked nothing.

Devil's advocate: he wasn't talking about BG3 targeting OG BG fans, instead he's using BG3 as an example of a turn based game that sold gangbusters. Thing is, the game being turn based isn't what sold it to the masses, at best it shows that combat presentation isn't necessarily the most important part of a game and if you manage to capture hearts and minds with the rest of the package, it will still work.

This of course goes both ways. It isnt an indictment of either action nor turn based combat systems.

Exactly this. I can even imagine them going the DMC route with the battle system and still pulling it off. But they didn't. They went DMC on the battle system and went game of thrones with the plot. The game doesn't have the immersive fantasy that we are used to.

What I think is sad about all this is because SE has enough talent to be original and creative. Final Fantasy Tactics has a much better plot (conspiracy, treason, assassination) than the overhyped GoT. So, why not be original and creative.

I love Dark Souls, BB, Sekiro etc, but I am not looking forward to FF17 being souls-like. I think they can come up with something original that will blow our minds (like they have done for decades).

https://twitter.com/6d6f636869/status/1790227310567960626

I wonder how much of that is not about quality or title/game but just ppl being broke.. I havnt acquired ff15, 16, 7 remake. Id love to, but that isnt something i could afford any time soon. Much less the expensive systems they run on. So i wouldnt buy them. Gotta think im not the only one out there in that position. .., May also be a reason why im back playing star ocean 2 on my ps2. Original ps1 version at that. Cant afford the system or the new remake of that either.

Be me

SE Treats me like ***for years not giving me games I like and locking the good ones on Playstation

I torrent their games now and play all the old ones on my Hacked PSP vita. The end

I think we talked about this before, but it kindof blew my mind a bit BG3 was as successful as it was despite being turn based. It was a bug ridden mess at the start, as well, and arguably incomplete yet everyone adored it and it was blowing ratings out of the water. The fact it was as successful as it was despite these things was a bit shocking to me, but it clearly had more soul and heart to it than a lot of the AAA titles coming today. It's easy to understand why it's a successful game among gamers, but what surprises me about all of this is how it appeals to casuals as well given the mechanics. I think there is perception that this sort of game isn't going to be popular among casual gamers or new audiences, something I think BG3 disproved.

I think Square has always had this drive to sortof redefine with FF is over the course of time. It started with 12, then progressive changes made with 13, now 16 is again trying to redefine what FF plays like. They are likely under the impression that this matter more than it actually does, they think they can appeal to both audiences, and that people want these drives forward more than they do. They are trying to appeal to wider audiences and failing to capture both at the same time. In fairness to them, there are very few game series that have lasted as long as FF and spans the width of time that it does, so they are kindof flying in uncharted areas.

That said, I'd argue BG3 is a lot closer to BG1 and BG2 than FF16 is to OG FF games (or Remake/Rebirth for that matter). They may not specifically be targeting these audiences, but they sure aren't alienating them and turning it into a Soulslike either. If anything, they found a really good middle ground that appeals to both.

Where was this thought process when you let Nomura sit on Versus 13 for 10 years, SE?


Wonder where FFXI fits into this plan.


/thread

Good! SE continue to fail, I don't like crap button smasher and DMC fantasy. I voted with my wallet. DQ 11 proved there is still a market for a good fun turn based market. I enjoyed DQ11 thoroughly and I get bored playing FF7:remake and still haven't finish it.

SE themselves: ff16/7 flopped.
ffxiah stans: NO, IT DIDN'T FLOP, EVERYONE IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This. Just this.

Although I am not a crpg fan(I am kind of player that can't self-insert at all), I think what crpg fan really want is role play freedom and experience. From what I've heard from BG3 reviews, BG3 absolutely nailed this experience and pushed it to a level that no other crpg has done before: You have a lot of choices, each choices has a consequences that makes a real difference.

The "bear sex" marketing campaign that exploded on the social media and promoted the game to casual audience is just the result of freedom of choice. "Look, You have so much freedom that you can even do bear sex!"

I think that is the reason why BG3 was successful. It brought the genre to the next level by enhancing the biggest main selling point.

As a jrpg fan who've been into this genre since 1997 or so I do feel this genre is currently stagnant. It feels large amount of design choices are exactly the same thing as 1992-2000 era. Persona 3-5 did tried something new by brining date sim into the formula. After persona I haven't seen anything that is groundbreaking.

I would say it isn't just SE getting stagnant, but the entire jrpg genre is.

I think SE's strength since 1990 is making cutscenes and art. This has not changed since SNES era. A lot of people keep rephrasing how awesome FF6 was when they experienced it for the first time on SNES over the years.

It's just that cutscenes and art has worse ROI than 1997-2000 now. The good graphic has gotten too expensive to make, and people are less amazed by good graphics.

The core of the problem isn't SE changing direction, but SE's biggest strength in the industry(cutscenes) is no longer the most desirable strength. That's why they have to chase the trend now. So at least they can survive even if they are no longer on top. It is a perfectly reasonable strategy if you ask me.

I think the problem that SE is currently facing is the same problem that every jrpg developer face tbh. Pretty much all the jrpg IP like Trails, Yakuza or octopath all aim for very specific target audience but never able to break into different groups.

Makes absolutely no sense. BG3 can be considered an even less active form of turn-based.

FF16 and FF7 remake are the furthest FFs have gotten from JRPG and the public reaction weren't there. 100% of your criticism to jrpg is battle system. Battle system IS NOT WHAT MAKES AN RPG great. It's a combination of everything put together, more specially the story and how the plot is delivered.

A DMC battle system alongside a boring Game of Thrones story is not what people wanted.

Everything in FF is blown out of proportion now. Sephiroth throws a whole *** building at Cloud, in the air, and Cloud just slices the building like they are both cutting pudin. Both these characters start fighting in the air like it's a Dragon Ball game. Why? What's the reasoning here? Were people complaining that Cloud was too stuck to the floor? Also the combo thing... Why was the 100x combo thing introduced? Who asked for it? This is not FF... it's just a whole new IP that they decided to stick FF name on.

BG3 is not jrpg, it is crpg. Crpg has a drastic different, if not opposite design philosophy from jrpg.

Like what proth said, the core problem is not combat system, but core experience. You keep getting super focused on combat system, this is missing the point and not really getting why jrpg has become stagnant entirely.

Oh boy, this dead horse again.

6.5 million sales in total over SIX platforms and re-release over a four year period: 3DS, PS4, PC, Switch, XBOne, Stadia

FYI
My critism wasn't turn based itself(even though I critized old school FF turn based battle system), my critism is the lack of depth in old school FF battle system: you basically pick one action that deals mathematically the highest dmg, and that optimal choices isn't hard to figure out because scan exists, which tells you the right answer. So the entire gameplay is to pick an action that you know is effective and watch animation plays.

Turn based battle system doesn't have to be that, they can be something much deeper. But over the years jrpg battle system continue to use that system as a base. That's why I don't like turn based system in jrpg. If they want to tell stories using gameplay with no depth, at least give me buttons to press for each move.

That's the reason why I prefer not to play turn based jrpg. It is not turn based's fault, but how they handle the system.

I am right there with you the combat system on both is very lacking. Simplistic attacks with no variability or in FF16 case just button mashing square with an accessory that swaps between Eikons for you.

FF16 story starts out dark and great, but turns into a love fest that isn't what hooked you on the game. There was no challenges to either game because of how linear it is and how much New Game + was pushed.

Why can't I struggle on the arena fights to fight hard content in FF7 until after the main story line is done? Why can't hunts actually be hard or be assessible when it would be an actual challenge to beat them?

I understand SE desire to stay relevant, but they have gotten away from their base and should've seen the writing on the wall with the stranger tides or whatever game that came out before 7 and 16.

Square Enix is going great!

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/square-enix-is-laying-off-employees-in-the-us-and-europe/

JP ONRY