Topic: Square Enix making a profit on online games?

[Ian Sane]

Since the games in question are non-Cube I figure this is a good place to put this.

According to 1UP.com Square Enix is making a profit on their online games.  Here's the link.

Now SE does uses a pay-to-play format which Nintendo doesn't want to do so there is still somewhat of an excuse that online gaming, in the way Nintendo wants to do it, isn't profitable.  Plus there are no specifics on how the PS2 version of FFXI did compared to the PC version.  But here is a company making a profit on online gaming in some form and in Japan too, the market that NCL focuses on the most.  And most important of all this shows that there is enough interest from the public in online games for it to make money.

So how is Nintendo going to react to this?  "Online gaming is not profitable" is no longer a decent excuse (well I never thought it was but whatever).  Sure this isn't exactly what Nintendo wants to do but it shows there's a market and that means Nintendo can't ignore it anymore.  Now there's no point in going online with the Cube at this late stage but they have to go online with the Revolution for sure now.

[Bill Aurion]

You're forgetting the second reason Ninty hasn't gone online yet, and that is because they don't want the fans to pay...

[Ian Sane]

I know Nintendo doesn't want the fans to pay.  I mentioned that.  But this means they just can't completely ignore online gaming.  90% of the time Nintendo's reaction to online gaming was always "it's not profitable" "or "not enough people are interested".  The "no pay" arguement didn't come up quite as often.  The point is the big excuse they used to fall back on is gone and the remaining excuse isn't going to cut it.  Pay-to-play online is still provides more options to gamers than no online period.

Plus I REALLY doubt that having the fans pay is that big of an issue to them.  This is the company that originally priced Player's Choice titles $10 more than the competition, charged more money for a memory card four times as small, re-releases bare bone NES ports at an inflated price, and releases slight variations of their Pokemon games at full price.  This is also the company that consistently charges more for third party licencing fees.  Now I love Nintendo for the games they make but they have no problem with grabbing every penny that they can.  They likely only cared about the pay-to-play thing because it wouldn't be popular enough to be profitable.

And still regardless of anything else there's no excuse for the Revolution to be offline.  No excuse that anyone choosing which console to buy will accept anyway.

[vudu]

Quote
This is the company that originally ... charged more money for a memory card four times as small....

Good point.  However, it's not like Nintendo wanted to charge you ten cents every time you saved your game.  And there's no such thing as a fee for running your game in progressive scan mode.  And I don't recall any plans of Nintendo charging you a buck to boot up your GameCube.

Nintendo's stance seems to be once you pay $50 to buy a game, you shouldn't have to pay more money to play it.  SE doesn't seem to have a problem with charging you $10/month to play a game you already paid for.  Nintendo does.  

Are there customers who are willing to pay a monthly fee to play games online?  Sure; just look at the success of Live or FFXI.  And I'll admit that running these servers cost money.  But Nintendo would like to be able to have it where once you purchase a game, you can play it without shelling out more money.  Until that is feasible, I don't foresee any online Mario Kart.  

[Pale]

I am kind of expecting a version of play online to come out for FF CC DS.  I just hope SE gives discounts if you have multiple game accounts.  FF XI is a lot of fun, and I have been playing pretty consistantly since last May.  

[PaLaDiN]

I'm sure the PC version had something to do with this.

Nintendo doesn't make PC games.

[Draygaia]

Uh if you already forgot about the DS then I'd see a reason to make this thread.

If Nintendo can create a Neverwinter Nights like game of I dunno the world of Zelda I think that will be more popular.  If you had to pay for something it isn't even close to $10 and plus its optional too.  They should learn from Bioware not Square-Enix.

[KDR_11k]

You are aware that there was an MMORPG (or MUD but I don't see much of a difference there) called Neverwinter Nights on AOL years ago?

MMORPGs target a wholly different demographic than normal games. And the server load is different. These results show you can make a profit with a system where you pay a fee per game but a per-service fee like XBL would give different results. And believe me, if Nintendo went for a pay-per-game model you'd hear lots of cries.

[Deguello]

Quote
Originally posted by: Draygaia
If Nintendo can create a Neverwinter Nights like game of I dunno the world of Zelda I think that will be more popular.

Quit threatening everybody.

[Leon Esla]

I really dislike the non-linearity of MMORPGs.  I simply need some sort of direction in a game, or else it's not so much of a game but more a part of life.  I've had my fair share of history playing MMORPGs (Asheron's Call, Ultima Online) and in the end I felt half the reason I was playing them were because of the built in chat rooms.  

Of course, in the case of non-RPGs I would gladly see Nintendo go online.  There's an obvious potential to make money here, whether it be through pay to play or simply by selling games.  But alongside that, there's an awesome potential to fail horribly.

When they day is done, I'd have to say I'm with Nintendo on this one.  I have no compelling need to play online games via console.  PC works perfectly fine, and in most cases requires no additional fee.

[KDR_11k]

Make a linear RPG and you have millions of people willing to murder you. You cannot play a role when all you're doing is going down a straight path. Note that I don't count japanese RPGs as RPGs, they're interactive movies with stats.

And linearity isn't a good concept for Multiplayer in any case. Might work for cooperative hack&slay or fragfests (Serious Sam anyone?) but nothing more lasting.

[Pale]

One thing I think MMOs need is a time limit...kind of like what WoW kind of announced a while ago that kind of turned out to be nothing.  The key to doing this is that the time limits will be server specific and affect your fee (if there is one)  For example...If i want to get into an MMO but only have 5 hours a week to devote to it, I can join a server that limits play time to 5-10 hours a week and it costs me less.  This is cool, because you will be more likely to meet people that will always be a similar level even though you are far from a hard core mmo player.  I really feel this could work well, especially in a very successful game like FFXI.

[KDR_11k]

naah, the companies would claim the majority of the money is to pay for new content and cut your fee by no more than 2 USD.

[Shecky]

Quote
Originally posted by: PaleZer0
One thing I think MMOs need is a time limit...kind of like what WoW kind of announced a while ago that kind of turned out to be nothing.  The key to doing this is that the time limits will be server specific and affect your fee (if there is one)  For example...If i want to get into an MMO but only have 5 hours a week to devote to it, I can join a server that limits play time to 5-10 hours a week and it costs me less.  This is cool, because you will be more likely to meet people that will always be a similar level even though you are far from a hard core mmo player.  I really feel this could work well, especially in a very successful game like FFXI.

Interesting concept though.  It would also force people to not make such games there new life and forget about the real world.  10 hrs a week is (or should be) quite a bit for most people.  

[Caillan]

Quote
For example...If i want to get into an MMO but only have 5 hours a week to devote to it, I can join a server that limits play time to 5-10 hours a week and it costs me less.

This would only cause those who joined earlier to have a higher level than everyone else. Also, greater competition between players who strive for levels would emerge: there would be an incentive to use the tme allowed most economically to do nothing but gain levels. I think the best way to deal with the problem of level disparity is to diminish the effect that levels have on a player's avatar. e.g. make it possible for characters to battle others 10-15 levels ahead of them, and still win. In most MUDs right now, levels seem more like a restriction than a reward, as does the requirement of playing in a team to effectively fight monsters.

Quote
So how is Nintendo going to react to this?

I think they will act the same as they have up until now. They'll ignore online play this generation, then have EAD/other first party/close second party make a high-profile, online enabled game at/soon after the Revolution launch. This will show they are willing to work ith the format.  

[Uglydot]

The way Square-Enix goes about online gameing is nearly a crime.  If you have an inactive account for 3 months in FFIX, it is deleted and your keys are useless.  You get to buy the game again if you want to play.  They charge for as many things as possible.  For and EQ tweak/clone with some FF elements, I can't believe this game is doing this well.  I played it, good game, the most comftorble rape I could imagin.

[couchmonkey]

Well, I've heard some comments in the media suggesting that Nintendo is softening its online stance recently.  I'm sure the company is going to go online with DS and Revolution, but it may still hesitate longer than it should.  In my opinion, Nintendo needs a major online title for Revolution within a year (preferably within a couple of months) of launch to prove that it's serious about going online.  I'm not sure if Nintendo will manage that or not.

Still, I don't think Nintendo was wrong to avoid online this generation.  Of the console owners I know, none are online, and the only one considering going online is only doing so because he loves Halo 2 so much.  So I don't personally think this was a really big selling point for most consumers.

As for how SquareEnix is making money, sounds pretty awful!