Why? Square, why?
Jason Sakamoto Kim
scribe:
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
You realize that Square will continue producing for Nintendo. And
knowing Square, I think FF7 won't even be ported to the N64, rather
the next in the series will go to it.
However, I'm a little peeved that FF for the N64 won't have any FMV.
Oh well, that's Nintendo's fault. maybe they'll wake up and make the
N64 CD-based before April. Ha! Doubt it.
@==-------------------------------=@=------------------------------==@
| Jason S. Kim | Author of Luminosity |
| jsk...@students.uiuc.edu | Founder of Luminous Productions |
| http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~jskim6/ | Aliases: Sakamoto, Souichiro |
@==-------------------------------=@=------------------------------==@
| My opinions do not reflect those of my employer, blah blah blah... |
@==----------------------------------------------------------------==@
"Before you love someone, you have to like them first."
-- Roy Fokker, "Robotech"
Jay Levy
this ... but there is one main reason Square is going with the PS.
They have to invest twice as much or MORE to develop a game for the
U64 than for the Playstation. It all has to do with the price of
cartridges vs. CDs. Square basically puts its whole company on the
line every time they make a game -- that won't happen with a CD. Lets
say you make a production run of 1 million units -- for the N64 it
would cost well over 15 million dollars -- for the PS it would cost
probably in the neighborhood of 3 million ... (someone please
correct me if I'm wrong, though ...). Now, as a company, who would you
make a game for -- a comapny is in it for "profit" -- plus, the
creative side of square must LOVE the storage space on the PS CDs.
Jay
In article <311E19...@worldnet.net>, Patrick <be...@worldnet.net> says:
>
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
>
>Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
>FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
>same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
>N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>
>And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>
>Anyone understands? I don't get it...
Patrick
The Bee
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
Maybe because Square cares about making a quality product that their
consumers will enjoy and respect. Perhaps they consider 64 megabits
to be a little limited for what they have planned for the epic FF7.
Sure, the bulky drive might boost them to 64 megabytes, but that means
a person will have to buy the N64 and an additional add on drive.
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
> Patrick (be...@worldnet.net) writes:
> > Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
> > (note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
> >
> > The question is WHY?
> > Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
> > but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
> > of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
> > why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
> >
> > Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
> > FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
> > same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
> > N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
> >
> > And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
> >
> > Anyone understands? I don't get it...
>
> I have no idea why Square has betrayed Nintendo and it's fans.
> All I know is that I've been a Nintendo fan long before I was a Square fan
> and even though I love RPG's I'm staying with Nintendo. I understood when
> they didn't relase FF5, I understood when they didn't relase SOM2, but I
> can't understand how they can betray Nintendo like that.
How the hell is it betraying? Look, video games are not some nice big
happy family where everyone cares about each other and is loyal, it's a
business and decisions are made based upon what is best for the business.
Do you think Nintendo wouldn't screw Square over in a second if it were
to their benefit?
Secondly, the N64 is a piece of machinery only as good as the games out
for it, just like the Playstation. It doesn't matter what system it comes
out for. What matters is that it comes out. Most Japanese RPGs don't.
> "This is sickening..... You sound like chapters from a self-help booklet"
> -Kefka
>
> Final Fantasy for PlayStation: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!
Hope you have insurance.
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
> Here's what a particular Patrick <be...@worldnet.net> was tempted to
> scribe:
>
> >Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
> >(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
> You realize that Square will continue producing for Nintendo. And
> knowing Square, I think FF7 won't even be ported to the N64, rather
> the next in the series will go to it.
> However, I'm a little peeved that FF for the N64 won't have any FMV.
> Oh well, that's Nintendo's fault. maybe they'll wake up and make the
> N64 CD-based before April. Ha! Doubt it.
Err, no, word has it Square has stp developing for Nintendo altogether.
My personal opinion is that it has to do with Nintendo's stubornness in
not releasing a CD-ROM.
Nicholas Yarymowich
> Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
> (note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
> Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
> but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
> of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
> why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
>
> Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
> FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
> same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
> N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>
> And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>
> Anyone understands? I don't get it...
I have no idea why Square has betrayed Nintendo and it's fans.
All I know is that I've been a Nintendo fan long before I was a Square fan
and even though I love RPG's I'm staying with Nintendo. I understood when
they didn't relase FF5, I understood when they didn't relase SOM2, but I
can't understand how they can betray Nintendo like that.
--
Joe Ottoson
(Nicholas Yarymowich) wrote:
> Patrick (be...@worldnet.net) writes:
> > Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
> > (note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
> >
> > The question is WHY?
> > Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
> > but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
> > of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
> > why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
> >
> > Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
> > FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
> > same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
> > N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
> >
> > And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
> >
> > Anyone understands? I don't get it...
>
> I have no idea why Square has betrayed Nintendo and it's fans.
> All I know is that I've been a Nintendo fan long before I was a Square fan
> and even though I love RPG's I'm staying with Nintendo. I understood when
> they didn't relase FF5, I understood when they didn't relase SOM2, but I
> can't understand how they can betray Nintendo like that.
It's really an easy concept. Money. Square wants to make more, so they go
for a CD based system with an userbase of 3 million. They'll make quite a
bit more money on the PSx than they ever would on the U64.
--
Lest we forget...
...A sharper edge was never seen as the like of the flowering guild. Should it have been revised, it would surely make sense...
DoctorZ
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
>Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
>FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
>same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
>N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>Anyone understands? I don't get it...
Because FF7 will looks so much better on N64.
No truly, N64 is not even out yet. They might make PSX and Saturn a
testing ground for their software, and why not make money on it ??
They probably develop some game for PSX and Saturn most probably is
conversion of some of their famous title.
Until now we haven't yet know what titile will be out and who knows
Square might change their mind
Daniel Alexander
BrianC6234
That's not true according to Square's press release. It stated they had 3
more SNES releases coming out and then they would put all of their
resources behind the PlayStation. I assume that means they only plan to
develop for the PlayStation. Those aren't the exact words from the press
release but that's basically what the press release said.
Brian
Steve
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
This is all just my opinion, but based on what I've read in this and
other newsgroups, and my own thoughts:
1. First and foremost, Square is a business to make money, just like
Nintendo, just like Sony.
2. Nintendo 64 won't be out in the US for awhile, and isn't out in Japan
yet, meaning there will not be a large user base (speculations are just
that). And maybe Square feels the need to develop on a machine that
exists to pay the bills, etc.. rather than wait.
3. Sony PS is selling remarkably well with a rather large user base in a
short amount of time.
4. Producing games on CD is not only cheaper (as in manufacturing) but
less risky than cartridges.
5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
cards are for.
6. Sony got smart and threw some money to Square.
--
--- <A HREF="http://weber.u.washington.edu/~link"> Optik Nirvana </A> ---
College isnt the place to go for ideas. -Helen Keller
--- NewSIG 2.01 199/266 ---
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
> This is all just my opinion, but based on what I've read in this and
> other newsgroups, and my own thoughts:
>
> 1. First and foremost, Square is a business to make money, just like
> Nintendo, just like Sony.
> 2. Nintendo 64 won't be out in the US for awhile, and isn't out in Japan
> yet, meaning there will not be a large user base (speculations are just
> that). And maybe Square feels the need to develop on a machine that
> exists to pay the bills, etc.. rather than wait.
> 3. Sony PS is selling remarkably well with a rather large user base in a
> short amount of time.
> 4. Producing games on CD is not only cheaper (as in manufacturing) but
> less risky than cartridges.
> 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
> despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
> cards are for.
> 6. Sony got smart and threw some money to Square.
I'd also add that if Square did RPGs for the N64, it would have been on
the Bulky Drive, and add-on, not the main system itself, thus brining the
user base down even further.
Josh Taylor
> This is all just my opinion, but based on what I've read in this and
> other newsgroups, and my own thoughts:
>
> 1. First and foremost, Square is a business to make money, just like
> Nintendo, just like Sony.
I find it hard to believe that they would make more money selling games
for the PSX than they would for the Ultra, since both systems will be out
by the time the first new game hits the shelves. Square already has a
HUGE fan base in Japan that are obviously already Nintendo owners, and
you would tend to think that a lot more of them would switch over to the
Ultra before they would the PSX.
> 2. Nintendo 64 won't be out in the US for awhile, and isn't out in Japan
> yet, meaning there will not be a large user base (speculations are just
> that). And maybe Square feels the need to develop on a machine that
> exists to pay the bills, etc.. rather than wait.
There is no way in hell that Square is giving any consideration to the
Sept. 30th U.S. release date. Just look at the amount of games that they
chose not to release in America and you can quite obviously see that they
could care less about our sales figures. They sell a shitload more of
games in Japan, and in Japan the Ultra will be out in April. and Square
has what they need to make games for the Ultra, they have for some time.
> 3. Sony PS is selling remarkably well with a rather large user base in a
> short amount of time.
I don't know about Japanese sales, and those are the only ones that matter.
> 4. Producing games on CD is not only cheaper (as in manufacturing) but
> less risky than cartridges.
I cringe at the thought of people waiting for their fight scene to
load....man for each fight scene......<<shudder>>...on the double-speed
drive....but CD's are cheaper, I'll give you that much (not like
Nintendo has a writable coming out at about the same time as the U.S.
launch date that is STill whattaya know, before December....hmmm)
> 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
> despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
> cards are for.
I don't know, I was doing quite splendidly with FFIII on its meager
cartridge. Yeah, look at all those RPG's on the Sega CD! Revolutionary!
Sarcasm off.
> 6. Sony got smart and threw some money to Square.
Exactly! And thats what it all comes down to. $$$
$ony probably paid $quare enough to cover the cost of the loss of
expected sales.
$igh
Torbjorn
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too...
Well! The interesting thing is of course how much money of each cart
Nintendo will share with Square! If they want to make a really big
RPG, there is also simply not enough room on a cartridge!
Nintendo's biggest misstake has been not to put a CD in the N64...
It may cost them much more than they have expected!
> Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
I beleive Square thinks about Square more than they think about
Nintendo!
>Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
>FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
>same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
>N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>Anyone understands? I don't get it...
We can't know the future, but let's face it a Cart based system is NOT
what any 3rd party developer is applauding these days!
/TJ
Welox Darkstar
: On 12 Feb 1996, Steve wrote:
: > This is all just my opinion, but based on what I've read in this and
: > other newsgroups, and my own thoughts:
: >
: > 1. First and foremost, Square is a business to make money, just like
: > Nintendo, just like Sony.
: > 2. Nintendo 64 won't be out in the US for awhile, and isn't out in Japan
: > yet, meaning there will not be a large user base (speculations are just
: > that). And maybe Square feels the need to develop on a machine that
: > exists to pay the bills, etc.. rather than wait.
: > 3. Sony PS is selling remarkably well with a rather large user base in a
: > short amount of time.
: > 4. Producing games on CD is not only cheaper (as in manufacturing) but
: > less risky than cartridges.
: > 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
: > despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
: > cards are for.
: > 6. Sony got smart and threw some money to Square.
: I'd also add that if Square did RPGs for the N64, it would have been on
: the Bulky Drive, and add-on, not the main system itself, thus brining the
: user base down even further.
I might add that the cost of the games for each system are radically different.
From what I have read from my Next Generation Magazine, they said the
average price for an Ultra 64 game will be $70-$100.. Mainly because
of the price of manufacturing Cartridges vs. CDs. That is just the AVERAGE
cost. I have noticed the average cost of good RPGs from the SNES vost 20+
then games of the other genres (Fighting, adventure, aracde, and etc.).
Imagine the cost of U64 RPGs! Whew, if you have to pay $70 for a good RPG
on the SNES, just think of the cost of RPGS on the u64! Plus that fact,
that you would have to buy a Bulky Drive for the u64 when it comes out (I
am sure it will come out. The creator of the U64 Mario hinted towards it.)
.
Anyway, that my 2 cents.
-Welox Darkstar
jc...@Mines.EDU
Sexton Furnival
>I have no idea why Square has betrayed Nintendo and it's fans.
>All I know is that I've been a Nintendo fan long before I was a Square fan
>and even though I love RPG's I'm staying with Nintendo. I understood when
>they didn't relase FF5, I understood when they didn't relase SOM2, but I
>can't understand how they can betray Nintendo like that.
it's on. they're just games. i'm way more pissed off STILL about ff5 than
i'll EVER be about ff7 ps.. especially because i already own a playstation. no
big deal. get over it. get a playstation, or sit in the corner and whine
about it, but don't act like it was some special tragedy that square's
publishing for another company. for god's sake they're just nice games.
Vo, Charles H.
>On 13 Feb 1996, Welox Darkstar wrote:
>
>> I might add that the cost of the games for each system are radically different.
>> From what I have read from my Next Generation Magazine, they said the
>> average price for an Ultra 64 game will be $70-$100.. Mainly because
>> of the price of manufacturing Cartridges vs. CDs. That is just the AVERAGE
>> cost. I have noticed the average cost of good RPGs from the SNES vost 20+
>> then games of the other genres (Fighting, adventure, aracde, and etc.).
>> Imagine the cost of U64 RPGs! Whew, if you have to pay $70 for a good RPG
>> on the SNES, just think of the cost of RPGS on the u64! Plus that fact,
>> that you would have to buy a Bulky Drive for the u64 when it comes out (I
>> am sure it will come out. The creator of the U64 Mario hinted towards it.)
>
>$20 is about how much each of the battery backups they have to put in the
>cartridge cost. While the Bulky Drive will eliminate the need for battery
>backups, it's also an add-on that you must buy in ADDITION to the N64
>itself. Why didn't they just make the Bulky disks the standard medium for
>their system?
i think the reason for that is that the base price won't be $250. It would
be over $300 which wouldn't exactly appeal to everyone. Most people
would buy the system at the appealing $250 not knowing that the Bulky Drive
will be a chunk of money extra.
Patrick Deupree
: Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
: (note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
: The question is WHY?
: Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
: but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
: of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
: why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
I read this and I ask myself, how have they really "stabbed nintendo in
the back"? What did Nintendo really do for Squaresoft (other than buying
some stock)? They obviously didn't cut them a break on liscensing fees
since Square RPG's are some of the most expensive games there are (though
well worth the money).
: Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
: FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
: same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
: N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
The N64 that will be released in 96 (if it's released in 96) will be so
severly limited that I think it makes sense to wait before creating an
RPG for it. If square creates an RPG for the N64 they will either have
to charge $150 for the cart, or they will have to limit the game while
RPG's for the PSX and Saturn have 600 Megabytes to play with, they would
be playing with 8 for the N64.
Can you imagine just how good the music for a Final Fantasy game would be
if it were CD music instead of synthesized music? (I've never bought one
of the CD's with their music, so I don't know how it sounds). Can you
imagine how much they can enhance playing it with audio dialog trakcks
versus straight text?
Personally, I think it will be VERY cool to see what Squaresoft can do
with the PSX now that they have 150 times more storage to work with. I
would also add that I don't think Final Fantasy would sell me on the U64
by itself. So I don't think it would sell "millions" more units or
"millions" more copies of Final Fantasy.
: And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
Now, if they owned 51% it would make a difference. However, think about
it this way. Nintendo could, theoretically, dump their percentage in
Square and cause them problems. However, I think that Nintendo needs
Squaresoft more than Squaresoft needs Nintendo right now, so I would
guess that Nintendo will play nice in this deal.
This is all just good business.
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
My sentiments exactly. Like I said before, don't bitch when RPGs go to
another system, just be glad you are getting them at all. Save your
bitching for when they don't come out at all here. Not that it ever does
any good though... :/
Nathan Rawlinson
memory so everything id loaded really quickly, as it needs to be.
CD's aren't so good for arcade games, but for RPG's they offer loads
more storage at the fraction of the price, and loading times don't
matter, as long as the game is programmed well.
Now do you wonder why Square are doing PSX games?
>Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
>The question is WHY?
>Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
>but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
>of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
>why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
>
>Why breaking such a long trust for this? And they're not even releasing
>FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
>same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
>N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>
>And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>
Aki
say...
>get a life. it's just a game system. if you want a game, go buy the system
>it's on. they're just games. i'm way more pissed off STILL about ff5 than
>i'll EVER be about ff7 ps.. especially because i already own a playstation.
no
>big deal. get over it. get a playstation, or sit in the corner and whine
>about it, but don't act like it was some special tragedy that square's
>publishing for another company. for god's sake they're just nice games.
I kinda agree. Square game is a Square game no matter which platform it's
on... at least to me. I think I'm more loyal to Square than Nintendo --
probably the reason I'm thinking of buying a PSX next year.. (I'm going to
wait till FF7 is released, though. Other PSX games, I can play on my
brother's PSX.)
And besides, the software's going to be cheaper ... (I think.)
--aki
Robert Bickell
>
> It's really, REALLY simple -- and I don't know why everyone is saying
> this ... but there is one main reason Square is going with the PS.
>
> They have to invest twice as much or MORE to develop a game for the
> U64 than for the Playstation. It all has to do with the price of
> cartridges vs. CDs. Square basically puts its whole company on the
> line every time they make a game -- that won't happen with a CD. Lets
> say you make a production run of 1 million units -- for the N64 it
> would cost well over 15 million dollars -- for the PS it would cost
> probably in the neighborhood of 3 million ... (someone please
> correct me if I'm wrong, though ...). Now, as a company, who would you
> make a game for -- a comapny is in it for "profit" -- plus, the
> creative side of square must LOVE the storage space on the PS CDs.
well, it obviously has to do with cash, but prolly nothing ot do with
cds vs carts. Especially with the way alot of their games are "second
party" games, where Nintendo releases the game under both their names,
pays for manufacturing, and the other company still gets loads of cash.
But I'm interested, will square release as first or second party for the
ps-x? But I can fully understand that they would like to expand their
market... :) not to many companies make too many exclusives, unless they
have a very sweet deal (rare) ...
> In article <311E19...@worldnet.net>, Patrick <be...@worldnet.net> says:
> >
> >Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
> >(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
nope.
--
______________________________________________________________
Robert Bickell email: pha...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
PhaLinX or: pha...@oanet.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pete
>
> ,109784,109788,109790,109793-109794,109796 not in active file. Deleting.
> : (note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
> : Why did they decided to do such a thing? The N64 will sell MUCH,
> : but with FF7, it would have sold MILLIONS more. And this means millions
> : of FF7 too... Now no doubt that they will sell lots of PS FF7, but
> : why stabing nintendo in the back like this?
>
> the back"? What did Nintendo really do for Squaresoft (other than buying
> some stock)? They obviously didn't cut them a break on liscensing fees
> since Square RPG's are some of the most expensive games there are (though
> well worth the money).
>
> : FF7 in 3 month to make money quick... They could have done exaclty the
> : same with the N64, WITH the release effect, and the few games on
> : N64, meaning even MORE MILLIONS...
>
> severly limited that I think it makes sense to wait before creating an
> RPG for it. If square creates an RPG for the N64 they will either have
> to charge $150 for the cart, or they will have to limit the game while
> RPG's for the PSX and Saturn have 600 Megabytes to play with, they would
> be playing with 8 for the N64.
>
> Can you imagine just how good the music for a Final Fantasy game would be
> if it were CD music instead of synthesized music? (I've never bought one
> of the CD's with their music, so I don't know how it sounds). Can you
> imagine how much they can enhance playing it with audio dialog trakcks
> versus straight text?
>
> Personally, I think it will be VERY cool to see what Squaresoft can do
> with the PSX now that they have 150 times more storage to work with. I
> would also add that I don't think Final Fantasy would sell me on the U64
> by itself. So I don't think it would sell "millions" more units or
> "millions" more copies of Final Fantasy.
>
> : And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>
> Now, if they owned 51% it would make a difference. However, think about
> it this way. Nintendo could, theoretically, dump their percentage in
> Square and cause them problems. However, I think that Nintendo needs
> Squaresoft more than Squaresoft needs Nintendo right now, so I would
> guess that Nintendo will play nice in this deal.
>
> This is all just good business.
If Nintendo was playing fair, why would they demand exclusives out of
every company that makes a game for the N64? And by the way, synthesized
music isn't much worse, but it would be cool if characters had their own
voices (if they didn't sound cheesy).
-The end for the N?
pete.
Hanson
>On 13 Feb 1996 st...@rosie.uh.edu wrote:
>> >Exactly, the reason that RPGs cost $20 more than other genres is because
>> >$20 is about how much each of the battery backups they have to put in the
>> >cartridge cost. While the Bulky Drive will eliminate the need for battery
>> >backups, it's also an add-on that you must buy in ADDITION to the N64
>> >itself. Why didn't they just make the Bulky disks the standard medium for
>> >their system?
>> i think the reason for that is that the base price won't be $250. It would
>> be over $300 which wouldn't exactly appeal to everyone. Most people
>> would buy the system at the appealing $250 not knowing that the Bulky Drive
>> will be a chunk of money extra.
>I suppose your right, though I personally would rather be a slightly more
>expensive system, if the games cost a little less. The prices that some
>of these carts have been going for lately is getting ridiculous, IMO.
Actually, the N64 has a back-up card in its controller. The Bulky
drive, therefore is more than a mere back-up. As I have no actual
details, I do not know how they will be able to capiltalize on the
concept of a writable disk system (and I will be flamed for that, I'm
sure). However, I cannot fathom why Nintendo would create a writable
disk system for the mere purpose of backing up your games if you could
back them up a using the controller anyway.
Hanson
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
J. Lee
>
>well, it obviously has to do with cash, but prolly nothing ot do with
>cds vs carts.
It has a LOT to do with CDs vs carts. Whenever a CD/cart war pops up,
cart advocates usually say that all that storage space is neat, but it's
only being used for FMV and music. Square is trying to avoid FMV and
other unecessary stuff, but they still predict FF7 at being 2 discs.
Which means that it's probably going to weigh in at about 1000 MBs of
data. An average cart in 16-bit was about 20 Mb, or 5 4-Mb chips. RPGs
usually got about 32 Mb, or 8 4-Mb chips. Assuming that 32-Mbit chips
cost as much as those 4-Mb ones did, a comparable N-G game would be 256
Mb, or 32 MB. With 8-to-1 compression, that would be 256 MB. More than
enough for most games, but only a fourth of what FF7 will be.
Now, let's say that an average cart costs $20 to build, $15 of which is
for the chips, with a $50 markup for overhead and profit. Since FF7
would require 4 times as much storage, it would cost $65 to build, and
would therefore cost the consumer an insane $115.
On CD, however, if each CD were to cost $3 to make, and FF7 were to take
up 2 CDs, then the cost of manufacturing would be $6, and the cost to the
consumer would be $56.
Don't believe my logic? While peeking through the carts which cost as
much as CDs, mosey on over to Phantasy Star 4. No, that's not a
misprint, it does indeed cost $100.
>Especially with the way alot of their games are "second
>party" games, where Nintendo releases the game under both their names,
>pays for manufacturing, and the other company still gets loads of cash.
That doesn't make it any cheaper.
>But I'm interested, will square release as first or second party for the
>ps-x?
Third-party. I'm pretty sure they'll bring out their own CDs, and send
them over to Squaresoft for American release. (If they do.)
>But I can fully understand that they would like to expand their
>market... :)
They're not expanding, they're switching.
>not to many companies make too many exclusives, unless they
>have a very sweet deal (rare) ...
Agreed. 2 or 3 games a year for approximately 1 shitload of money
apiece... I'd take that deal.
>
>> In article <311E19...@worldnet.net>, Patrick <be...@worldnet.net> says:
>> >
>> >Now we all know square has decided to go for the PS.
>> >(note: do we know if they have decided to STOP developing for Nin?)
>
>nope.
I wouldn't keep my hopes up, though.
>
>--
> ______________________________________________________________
> Robert Bickell email: pha...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
> PhaLinX or: pha...@oanet.com
> --------------------------------------------------------------
--
#666 (abortion! neener, neener) : "Oh, no! What do we do now?"
jfl...@u.washington.edu : "I know! Beat up the hedge!" - The Tick
"I was not created in the likeness of a fraud." - Red Hot Chili Peppers
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~jfl666/ (abortion! Eat me, Exon!)
David Gracia
> >Exactly, the reason that RPGs cost $20 more than other genres is because
> >$20 is about how much each of the battery backups they have to put in the
> >cartridge cost.
This is only partly true. While it is a contributing factor, the other reason is that
RPG's take CONSIDERABLY longer than just about any other genre to develop, therefore
they take up more resources, and of course more dough. You gotta pay the bills...
> >While the Bulky Drive will eliminate the need for battery
> >backups, it's also an add-on that you must buy in ADDITION to the N64
> >itself. Why didn't they just make the Bulky disks the standard medium for
> >their system?
>
> i think the reason for that is that the base price won't be $250. It would
> be over $300 which wouldn't exactly appeal to everyone. Most people
> would buy the system at the appealing $250 not knowing that the Bulky Drive
> will be a chunk of money extra.
It would be A LOT more than $300 dollars. Nintendo's move toward cartridge format
freed up about $80 cost per system. CD drives are EXPENSIVE. This extra money allowed
them to invest in a more expensive chipset. Frankly, I believe that the bulky drive is
going to cost us poor saps another $150 - $200. Not only are we going to have to foot
the cost of the drive, but also all of the misc. garbage that will be necessary to
hook the thing up to the base unit. If the big N put all of that stuff in one unit
(bulky drive, base unit, pack-in, etc.), it would cost us DUCATS.
David Gracia
Assistant Producer/Game Designer
Sony Interactive Studios
============================================================
My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
============================================================
vejita
> And doesn't nintendo own 20% of square?
>
> Anyone understands? I don't get it...
SCE and Sony Music Entertainment are part of the same tree just different
branches, yet Kileak 2 was made by SME and the PSX by SCE... go figure...
Jay Swartzfeger
Josh Taylor <eaf...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>I find it hard to believe that they would make more money selling games
>for the PSX than they would for the Ultra, since both systems will be out
>by the time the first new game hits the shelves. Square already has a
>HUGE fan base in Japan that are obviously already Nintendo owners, and
>you would tend to think that a lot more of them would switch over to the
>Ultra before they would the PSX.
>
But the PSX will have an installed bas of at least 4-5 million by then,
whereas the N64 will have only been on sale for a few months.
>There is no way in hell that Square is giving any consideration to the
>Sept. 30th U.S. release date. Just look at the amount of games that they
>chose not to release in America and you can quite obviously see that they
>could care less about our sales figures. They sell a shitload more of
>games in Japan, and in Japan the Ultra will be out in April. and Square
>has what they need to make games for the Ultra, they have for some time.
>
I believe the N64 release has been pushed back to at least late July in
Japan.
>I cringe at the thought of people waiting for their fight scene to
>load....man for each fight scene......<<shudder>>...on the double-speed
>drive....but CD's are cheaper, I'll give you that much (not like
>Nintendo has a writable coming out at about the same time as the U.S.
>launch date that is STill whattaya know, before December....hmmm)
This is *way* over rated. Toshinden and Tekken for the PSX have virtuall no
loading time at all. I cringe at the thought of $80 cartridges.
>> 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
>> despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
>> cards are for.
>
>I don't know, I was doing quite splendidly with FFIII on its meager
>cartridge. Yeah, look at all those RPG's on the Sega CD! Revolutionary!
>Sarcasm off.
>
You're right about FF3 working quite well on a cartridge... but why should
we limit ourselves if we don't have to? We'll never know the possibilities
of an excellent cd-based rpg until we play one.
---
,-~~-.___. *********************************
/ | ' \ * Jay Swartzfeger Pittsburgh Pa *
( ) 0 *-------------------------------*
\_/-, ,----' * Writer/Musician/Scatologist *
==== // * Part-Time Conspiracy Theorist *
/ \-'~; /~~~(O) *-------------------------------*
/ __/~| / | * evge...@fyi.net *
=( _____| (_________| *********************************
David Johnson
Jay Swartzfeger <evge...@fyi.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960212...@taurus.oac.uci.edu>,
>Josh Taylor <eaf...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>This is *way* over rated. Toshinden and Tekken for the PSX have virtuall no
>loading time at all. I cringe at the thought of $80 cartridges.
games now.... then again those prices have gone up $10-$20 since the
first release. *shrug* who knows? just need to wait and see.
>>> 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
>>> despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
>>> cards are for.
Actually you can get MO(MagnetoOptical) disks that ARE read/write-able.
Though they are a bit more expensive than normal CD's.
=-=David
mark Thomson
> testing ground for their software, and why not make money on it ??
> They probably develop some game for PSX and Saturn most probably is
> conversion of some of their famous title.
>
> Until now we haven't yet know what titile will be out and who knows
> Square might change their mind
As far as I can understand Square have sent Ninty packing and have
returned their Nintendo 64 developing kit. Square's WWW site is now
boasting screenshots of the FF7 which I presume is the PSX version that
will be released during December in Japan.
Good news for Sony since their isn't really a strong catelogue of RPG's
available on the psx. Bad news for Nintendo but I'm sure that they will
survive and I'm sure that if the N64 does indeed become the world beater
that square will soon enough return back to the fold.
Mark
J. Lee
Jay Swartzfeger <evge...@fyi.net> wrote:
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960212...@taurus.oac.uci.edu>,
>Josh Taylor <eaf...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>load....man for each fight scene......<<shudder>>...on the double-speed
>>drive....
How do you mean? I play RPGs on my single-speed Sega CD, and the load
time for a fight is less than a second. The load time for entering a
town, or dungeon, however...
>>but CD's are cheaper, I'll give you that much (not like
>>Nintendo has a writable coming out at about the same time as the U.S.
>>launch date that is STill whattaya know, before December....hmmm)
>
>This is *way* over rated. Toshinden and Tekken for the PSX have virtuall no
>loading time at all. I cringe at the thought of $80 cartridges.
Yep. The CD/cart argument may be valid when it comes to action games, or
whatever, but RPGs take up TONS of room just in gameplay, giving CDs the
advantage.
>
>>> 5. For RPG's, CD's with vast storage would seem to be an ideal medium,
>>> despite the fact that they are read only, but that's what the memory
>>> cards are for.
>>
>>I don't know, I was doing quite splendidly with FFIII on its meager
>>cartridge. Yeah, look at all those RPG's on the Sega CD! Revolutionary!
>>Sarcasm off.
>>
>
>You're right about FF3 working quite well on a cartridge... but why should
>we limit ourselves if we don't have to? We'll never know the possibilities
>of an excellent cd-based rpg until we play one.
Really. Who thought FF3 could have used more spell effects, more
backgrounds, more character animations? (hand goes up in the air) Who
thought Chrono Trigger should have been a LOT longer, perhaps with a more
interactive map screen? (me again. wow.)
>
>
>---
>
>
> ,-~~-.___. *********************************
> / | ' \ * Jay Swartzfeger Pittsburgh Pa *
> ( ) 0 *-------------------------------*
> \_/-, ,----' * Writer/Musician/Scatologist *
> ==== // * Part-Time Conspiracy Theorist *
> / \-'~; /~~~(O) *-------------------------------*
> / __/~| / | * evge...@fyi.net *
> =( _____| (_________| *********************************
>
Jason Chia-Shin Chung
: In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.960212...@taurus.oac.uci.edu>,
: Josh Taylor <eaf...@taurus.oac.uci.edu> wrote:
: >I find it hard to believe that they would make more money selling games
: >for the PSX than they would for the Ultra, since both systems will be out
[snip]
It appears that the N's arrogance has finally caught up. Ironic how its
dominance was in superior marketing of an technically inferior product
(NES vs. SMS) and it's currently in trouble due to poor marketing of a
technically superior product (in terms of processing power/chipset).
Square leaving for the PS is not likely to affect anyone here, as it is
still unknown whether FF7 will be released in the U.S. However, if it
bolsters sales in Japan as predicted, then you may see many third-party
developers jumping ship. And SS Nintendo may be in danger of sinking.
Cheers,
J. Chung
Jonathan Charbonneau
>
> testing ground for their software, and why not make money on it ??
> They probably develop some game for PSX and Saturn most probably is
> conversion of some of their famous title.
>
> Until now we haven't yet know what titile will be out and who knows
> Square might change their mind
to remake some old ff's for the playstation , and now they're doing
a brand new one. it might look better on the n64 , but you've probably
seen the graphics of ff7 for the psx and it looks pretty hot. i own
a playstation , so i'm really glad that square has decided to make
final fantasy 7 for the psx.
jonathan charbonneau
Billy Joe Bissette
: Really. Who thought FF3 could have used more spell effects, more
: thought Chrono Trigger should have been a LOT longer, perhaps with a more
: interactive map screen? (me again. wow.)
Hmm, I wanted none of those things for FF3. It had too many useless
spells. The backgrounds didn't matter too much, nor the animations,
with the lack of another thing. A lot of various enemies! You go through
an area and after two battles you've seen every creature in the area,
after three battles you've seen every combination of creatures for the
area. Still something CD storage could help with though.
--
Billy J. Bissette
MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA
> Actually, the N64 has a back-up card in its controller. The Bulky
> drive, therefore is more than a mere back-up. As I have no actual
> details, I do not know how they will be able to capiltalize on the
> concept of a writable disk system (and I will be flamed for that, I'm
> sure). However, I cannot fathom why Nintendo would create a writable
> disk system for the mere purpose of backing up your games if you could
> back them up a using the controller anyway.
>
> Hanson
Well, it was my understanding that the bulky drive could write a onto a
signfigant portion of it's space, about 20 megabytes worth. For games
like RPGs this would be good because it would not only allow you to save
your spot, but to make and save signifigant changes to the world itself,
kind of like some of the more complex computer games that run on your HD.
The downside though is that since this is an add on for the N64, that
further limits the user base and doesn't Nintendo own the rights to the
bulky drive technology so they can basically charge what they want for
it? CD-ROMs, while not writeable (not cheaply anyay), are very
inexpensive and it is also a very universal, easy to produce format.
Montgomery Gabrys
> Lets
> say you make a production run of 1 million units -- for the N64 it
> would cost well over 15 million dollars -- for the PS it would cost
> probably in the neighborhood of 3 million ... (someone please
> correct me if I'm wrong, though ...). Now, as a company, who would you
> make a game for -- a comapny is in it for "profit" -- plus, the
> creative side of square must LOVE the storage space on the PS CDs.
>
> Jay
>
Correcto! this is the prime gripe that made me get a PSX instead of wait
for an ultra. There "were" reports that the Ultra cart prices would be
maintained at the SNES levels-but that was only for those makers that
kept their memory levels at the min. Square and others can't make do
with that much contraint and thus-even if they hadn't defected when I
bought my unit-the prices of the carts were obviously doomed to NEO GEO
price levels. Well, I decided that I'd rather put my money into
volume-rather than a few "must haves".
Not too surpirsed that the developers are looking at that as well. One
thing to note besides putting the company on the line with every
advanced cart-order, they would have to answer to INVESTORS now that
they are a publically held company-one reason the news was in the
papers. Privately held companies don't have to report every move they
are making-and obviously Square can't wait forever for the Ultra to come
out-nor can they suspend profits for losses until the mag-drive comes
out.
In other stock news rumors are flying that the delay might extend the
Japanease release into the summer is causing stock dumping in Japan.
Scary. Looks like nintendo is hyping to much and now the Nekai index is
reacting accordingly.
Latest IG update-they hated the development tools as well. I'm wondering
if nintendo are still asking develoeprs to buy whole "reality engines"
(the highest priced SGI's out there) still. If that's the case, Square
couldnt take Investors wondering why they were throwing so much money
into 1 million dollar development units vs 10-20k sony PSX tools...
I think Nintendo's getting just a "bit" cockey since they pulled the
same stunts when the SNES came out (restrictive licesences, and game
title caps-not that they lasted for long) only this time the market has
most defenetly shifted-and even the last time they pulled such stunts
half the developer and user base went to SEGA. Now they're doing it
again-how far are they going to fall now? Blech...
monty
mga...@aol.com
(note before you heckle my aol account nerdboys-pay the friggin costs
for an ISP in Missouri for me instead <god I need to get back to
colorado, land of free internet access>)
GEORGE ARUGAY MONTEMAYOR
: >we limit ourselves if we don't have to? We'll never know the possibilities
: >of an excellent cd-based rpg until we play one.
: Really. Who thought FF3 could have used more spell effects, more
: backgrounds, more character animations? (hand goes up in the air) Who
: thought Chrono Trigger should have been a LOT longer, perhaps with a more
: interactive map screen? (me again. wow.)
eek, I wonder what a Chrono Trigger CD would be like. I mean, think of
all the possibilities you can do in CD especially since it is a time
travelling game where anything you do in the past will literally alter the
present. :)
-george
Hanson
>signfigant portion of it's space, about 20 megabytes worth. For games
>like RPGs this would be good because it would not only allow you to save
>your spot, but to make and save signifigant changes to the world itself,
>kind of like some of the more complex computer games that run on your HD.
>The downside though is that since this is an add on for the N64, that
>further limits the user base and doesn't Nintendo own the rights to the
>bulky drive technology so they can basically charge what they want for
>it?
fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
>CD-ROMs, while not writeable (not cheaply anyay), are very
>inexpensive and it is also a very universal, easy to produce format.
"Very universal"? What, you mean that I can put PSX games into a
Saturn?
Hanson
Michael P Collins
Square, why? by Han...@ix.netcom.com
> fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
> gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
> using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
Uhm, lessee - FF6 has a list price of ca. 10,000 yen in Japan (mean from
a half-dozen responses I've received in the past week). FF7 has a list
price of 5,800 Y (from the Squaresoft page). I think a 42% discount is
a passable price difference... Of course, YMMV.
I get the impression that the whole reason Nintendo is producing the
Bulky Drive is to ensure a monopoly - higher prices here we come.
Michael Collins, mc...@andrew.cmu.edu
Overworked, Overstressed, Underslept, Underfed - Undergrad
J. Lee
Hanson <fat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA <o...@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote:
>>Well, it was my understanding that the bulky drive could write a onto a
>>signfigant portion of it's space, about 20 megabytes worth. For games
>>like RPGs this would be good because it would not only allow you to save
>>your spot, but to make and save signifigant changes to the world itself,
>>kind of like some of the more complex computer games that run on your HD.
>>The downside though is that since this is an add on for the N64, that
>>further limits the user base and doesn't Nintendo own the rights to the
>>bulky drive technology so they can basically charge what they want for
>>it?
>fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
>gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
>using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
You really annoy me, fatboy. Licensing fees are at the heart of the
whole Square thing, in case you haven't noticed. The price of a piece of
software is the cost to produce, overhead, a licensing fee, plus profit.
If Nintendo charges, say, and extra $30, that means that the game will
cost $30 more. Either that, or the company will axe ones that'll sell
less than 5 million, meaning we only see the same re-hashed titles over
and over again.
>
>>CD-ROMs, while not writeable (not cheaply anyay), are very
>>inexpensive and it is also a very universal, easy to produce format.
> "Very universal"? What, you mean that I can put PSX games into a
>Saturn?
No, dumbass, he means that the equipment and employees required to cut
CDs will work when cutting any CD. Now, let's say you have the
appropriate materials to make SNES carts. All of a sudden, you need to
produce for another system to keep up with the market. You order a new
development kit, pay to have your production facilities redone, or buy
all new ones, and have your employees trained in how to make the new
carts. Or, if you don't have the facilities, you simply pay lots of
bucks in fees to have someone else make it for you.
On the other hand, if you make music CDs, and all of a sudden decide to
make Playstation CDs, you order the development kit. Simple, huh?
--
#666 (abortion!) : "I feel the need, the need for
jfl...@u.washington.edu : expeditious velocity." - Pinky and the Brain
LLinemann
Hanson
>Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.video.nintendo: 25-Feb-96 Re: Why?
>Square, why? by Han...@ix.netcom.com
>> Really, what does it matter to you what Nintendo charges as licensing
>> fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
>> gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
>> using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
>
>Uhm, lessee - FF6 has a list price of ca. 10,000 yen in Japan (mean from
>a half-dozen responses I've received in the past week). FF7 has a list
>price of 5,800 Y (from the Squaresoft page). I think a 42% discount is
>a passable price difference... Of course, YMMV.
>
>I get the impression that the whole reason Nintendo is producing the
>Bulky Drive is to ensure a monopoly - higher prices here we come.
> Michael Collins, mc...@andrew.cmu.edu
Gee Mike, I didn't know you were JAPANESE!!! It's nice to see that
Square is actually passing the savings along to the gamer --
IN JAPAN -- but FF7 was also 10,000 Y and released here for $69.95.
There's a point in there somewhere.
Hanson
Hanson
>In article <3130e657...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Hanson <fat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA <o...@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote:
>>>Well, it was my understanding that the bulky drive could write a onto a
>>>signfigant portion of it's space, about 20 megabytes worth. For games
>>>like RPGs this would be good because it would not only allow you to save
>>>your spot, but to make and save signifigant changes to the world itself,
>>>kind of like some of the more complex computer games that run on your HD.
>>>The downside though is that since this is an add on for the N64, that
>>>further limits the user base and doesn't Nintendo own the rights to the
>>>bulky drive technology so they can basically charge what they want for
>>>it?
>>Really, what does it matter to you what Nintendo charges as licensing
>>fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
>>gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
>>using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
>
>You really annoy me, fatboy. Licensing fees are at the heart of the
>whole Square thing, in case you haven't noticed. The price of a piece of
>software is the cost to produce, overhead, a licensing fee, plus profit.
>If Nintendo charges, say, and extra $30, that means that the game will
>cost $30 more. Either that, or the company will axe ones that'll sell
>less than 5 million, meaning we only see the same re-hashed titles over
>and over again.
Pure baloney. The mark-up may be lower, but if the installed user
base is larger, you're bottom line profits are higher. And no system
could ever sustain itself by giving out the same crappy games (look at
Atari -- no, not the Jaguar, the 2600). If I'm a publisher and know
that I have to make a good game in order to make a profit -- well, I
as a gamer like that kind of impetus. Much better than getting a game
that's 6 hours long with a *CD soundtrack* (and I saved $10!!!
Whoopee). That kind of crap isn't going to last for very long.
>>>CD-ROMs, while not writeable (not cheaply anyay), are very
>>>inexpensive and it is also a very universal, easy to produce format.
>> "Very universal"? What, you mean that I can put PSX games into a
>>Saturn?
>
>No, dumbass, he means that the equipment and employees required to cut
>CDs will work when cutting any CD. Now, let's say you have the
>appropriate materials to make SNES carts. All of a sudden, you need to
>produce for another system to keep up with the market. You order a new
>development kit, pay to have your production facilities redone, or buy
>all new ones, and have your employees trained in how to make the new
>carts. Or, if you don't have the facilities, you simply pay lots of
>bucks in fees to have someone else make it for you.
>On the other hand, if you make music CDs, and all of a sudden decide to
>make Playstation CDs, you order the development kit. Simple, huh?
>
Which brings me back to my point -- what the heck does that matter to
you? Do you manufacture CD's? If a publisher has to buy the carts
because the money is out there, then nobody is going to stop them.
Why are you so gosh darned concerned about the software publishers
anyway?
Hanson
No cursing, no flaming, no insults.
Michael P Collins
Square, why? by Han...@ix.netcom.com
No need to be rude - argumenta ad homina simply reduce the efficacy of
your argument to the subtroglodytic level; admittedly, my opinion of
your epistomology isn't dazzlingly high as it stands, but c'est la vie.
> Square is actually passing the savings along to the gamer --
> IN JAPAN -- but FF7 was also 10,000 Y and released here for $69.95.
> There's a point in there somewhere.
You seem to have missed it somewhere when your adrenalin maxed out.
Now, let's look at an excerpt:
>Square, why? by Han...@ix.netcom.com
>> Really, what does it matter to you what Nintendo charges as licensing
>> fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
>> gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
>> using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
I would say in lieu of an actual dollar figure, we can safely assume
that if the price of FF's experiences a 42% drop as they shift over to a
CD-ROM platform, we can expect to see _some_ drop on this end. As I
don't know what the American price will be (assuming, of course, that
there is an American version), I would say that this is a pretty useful
piece of information in the interim. You have your backup. Please deal
with it and have a pleasant fluffy day.
Eduardo Labindao
: base is larger, you're bottom line profits are higher. And no system
: could ever sustain itself by giving out the same crappy games (look at
: Atari -- no, not the Jaguar, the 2600). If I'm a publisher and know
: that I have to make a good game in order to make a profit -- well, I
: as a gamer like that kind of impetus. Much better than getting a game
: that's 6 hours long with a *CD soundtrack* (and I saved $10!!!
: Whoopee). That kind of crap isn't going to last for very long.
Sounds like you're making a generalization that a game, if on cd, will
tend to be crappy.
Look, I know you like to compare snes carts with psx or saturn cds, but so
far you haven't given any longevity stats for snes cart games. You might
care to know that SNES action games on average take almost the same amount
of time to finish as any psx or saturn action game -- if not shorter.
Since you've been heavily mouthing off the longevity of cd games, I might
care to mention a few for the snes:
DK1 or DK2: 3 hours (screw the secrets, I want to accomplish the goal
of the game).
Yoshi's Safari: 2 hours.
Super Mario: 4 hours.
EarthWorm jim 1 & 2: 5 and 5(approx) hours respectively.
Punchout: 4 hours.
Spiderman and Venom: 5 hours(this game is abnoxiously hard,
and boring)
Plus a lot of other games where on average, I finish under 7 hours.
So your statement:
: as a gamer like that kind of impetus. Much better than getting a game
: that's 6 hours long with a *CD soundtrack* (and I saved $10!!!
: Whoopee). That kind of crap isn't going to last for very long.
Can apply for cart games too. Except for the 'I saved $10' which only
applies to CD's plus it should actually be 'I saved $30'.
Yeah, I love a CD soundtrack. Sometimes I pop a Psx or Saturn cd in my
stereo and just listen (Loaded is a good listen). I really hope you're
telling the truth in 'That kind of crap isn't going to last for very
long'. It lasted long enough for my snes. You see, if you look, you will
find crappy games no matter what console. The snes, the psx, the genny,
the saturn -- none are immune. The problem with you, my boy, is you always
just look or go for the crappy titles. I'm sorry if you've been getting
stiffed all this time whenever you buy a new game and end up with
something crappy. I have this nagging suspicion you do it deliberately,
just to badmouth someone else's system of choice. I never hear you say
anything good about a particular game on another console. Face it, you
are biased.
Heil Hanson.
Maybe you just want a cart based system cos you're waiting for those FFE
bastiches to make a copier for it...
SilverWolf
> MICHAEL JOHN OLIVA <o...@hopi.dtcc.edu> wrote:
> >Well, it was my understanding that the bulky drive could write a onto a
> >signfigant portion of it's space, about 20 megabytes worth. For games
> >like RPGs this would be good because it would not only allow you to save
> >your spot, but to make and save signifigant changes to the world itself,
> >kind of like some of the more complex computer games that run on your HD.
> >The downside though is that since this is an add on for the N64, that
> >further limits the user base and doesn't Nintendo own the rights to the
> >bulky drive technology so they can basically charge what they want for
> >it?
> Really, what does it matter to you what Nintendo charges as licensing
> fees? Because if you don't see any real cash money savings as a
> gamer, this kind of talk is all B.S. -- I wish everybody would stop
> using this as an argument unless they can back it up with something.
>
If there is less financial risk to Square, then Square of Japan would be
willing to take a chance and translate games that they otherwise wouldn't.
The reason that we have missed out on many RPGs in the past is that
companies didn't want to take the risk of it bombing. There is far less
monetary loss when a CD flops than when a Cart does.
That's what we mean when we talk about liscencing fees.
--
I will measure it all and own it all
And I will be inside it
As inside my own laughter
And not staring out at it through walls
Of my eye's cold quarentine
From a buried cell of bloody blackness
This message has been brought to you by SilverWolf (formerly
known as Dr. Nick)
:) I love MoogleGirl :)
I'm the stain, you can't wash me away!!!
Torbjorn
>CD maybe...DVD CDs are a suggestion...
Yupp! that would be a dream come true for me!!
/TJ
Richard T Jordan
>Games are expensive to produce nowadays, and it is stupid to waste
>money on a bad game. You used Capcom's Mega Man as an example.
>Arguably the best action series for the NES systems, they sold like
>hot cakes because there was a demand for them. Demand doesn't come
>from disgruntled customers; it comes from satisfied custiomers.
>
>Maybe I misread you and the word you were looking for was
>"innovation". Yes, it is true that the Street Fighter series is
>getting mighty tired, and Capcom is milking it for every penny and
You're assuming that every one is disgruntled. I can be patient.
The world will not explode because N64 is arriving in Sept. 30th.
And I KNOW that they will not push back the date any farther.
They've given themselves a TON of leeway...to push back the release
once more would be suicide.