Kotaku: The Final Fantasy XV Problem

[Squirrel Emperor]

I actually like the concept of DLC if well done. But of course, well done DLCs aren't that common (can't think of too many). A good DLC would basically be content created AFTER the game's launch (that is, entirely new content) with a price that goes accordingly to its actual content.

Nintendo is doing DLC right with Mario Kart 8. They did it right with New Super Luigi U too.

But I think there's no way that XV isn't going to sell well in the West (as long as it isn't a trainwreck of a game), and PS4 is crushing the market. The problem is Japan as Schreier said, so let's hope things get better. It would be very sad that the Japanese industry gets even worse. I miss the good old days.

Definitely.

Final Fantasy XV not doing well in Japan could be pretty devastating for the IP itself unless the west can make up for lost ground. The IP has been on a sales decline in Japan and console gaming isn't really doing much of anything at the moment. This is one of those AAA IP's that also needs to sell over 5 million in order to break even and be successful too.

As Final Fantasy is one of the few IPs left in Japan that sells in the millions and can move hardware, Final Fantasy XV not selling well would have a pretty nasty negative effect on the Japanese console market, which would also carry over have an effect on the western market in some fashion too. Japanese developers will have to really start thinking about console gaming in the west more or they may end up just shifting over to mobile instead.

 

[yeah_93]

Not only that. In fact, the game may not bomb, but it may not reach SE's insane standards (Didn't they say Tomb Raider "under performed" when it sold 6 millions?). The game has a lot going against it.

 

[Orenji]

DLCs, when done wrong (as in XIII-2/LR), are a true WASTE of money. I don't want XV to have any DLCs. If it does, it better be outfits or bull* like that. I don't want missions or similar stuff to have the DLC treatment. After 8+ years, I'd feel cheated. I mean, c'mon you've had the time to include EVERYTHING in the game...

 

[Squirrel Emperor]

Not only that. In fact, the game may not bomb, but it may not reach SE's insane standards (Didn't they say Tomb Raider "under performed" when it sold 6 millions?). The game has a lot going against it.

From my understanding, Square Enix was expecting Tomb Raider to put up big numbers in a very short time period. A lot of big AAA games will get all their sales in a few weeks and then die off. They never have long legs (that's a Nintendo thing).

 

[KOKAYI5]

DLC can be quite atrocious. I'd prefer the sequels to be honest.

Then if they do a sequel and people are up in arms screaming it's milking, then what?

The DLC I'm talking about is extra dungeons and towns and sidequests after the game. These would add to the lore of the game. Square has to stop doing sequels for a while. I like some of them, but most fans and haters of FFs will take just about any sequel and see it as pointless cash-grabs. No matter how much plot and extra content is in it. So DLCs that have lots of extra dungeons and challenges and story and sidequests can ACT as sequels without BEING sequels.

EDIT: When I played the DLC for Dragon Age 2, I found it very good. This was a series of dungeons as the characters conversed and worked together to get the job done. They also got even more new gear and weapons. And you had the option to do it AFTER the game was over. Doing it that way, you're have MORE to do well after the plot ended.

 

[Takoyaki]

Not only that, but completely new games need to take precedence over sequels.

 

[Crystal Power]

Then if they do a sequel and people are up in arms screaming it's milking, then what?

The DLC I'm talking about is extra dungeons and towns and sidequests after the game. These would add to the lore of the game. Square has to stop doing sequels for a while. I like some of them, but most fans and haters of FFs will take just about any sequel and see it as pointless cash-grabs. No matter how much plot and extra content is in it. So DLCs that have lots of extra dungeons and challenges and story and sidequests can ACT as sequels without BEING sequels.

EDIT: When I played the DLC for Dragon Age 2, I found it very good. This was a series of dungeons as the characters conversed and worked together to get the job done. They also got even more new gear and weapons. And you had the option to do it AFTER the game was over. Doing it that way, you're have MORE to do well after the plot ended.

Nothing! Hate to sound blunt but people complain about so many things and that's their opinions.

You know I think there is a bit of misunderstand. My main problem is DLC that is rather pointless as it was announced while the game was in development. They could still add that all in the game! When Final Fantasy VII, VIII, and IX where released there was no need for DLC. Not even sequels! All the content should be included form the start unless it came as a thought after the game release.

EDIT:

Not only that, but completely new games need to take precedence over sequels.

Trust me! I don't want sequel over new games! I highly prefer they keep making new title. But I also don't want $60 dollars worth of content in the DLC shop when it could have been included form the start! Sad thing is some games will make you spend about $40 on costumes alone! I could buy a whole new game with that money. Sure I'm not forced to buy it but why do I have to be left out? LOL.

 

[KOKAYI5]

I just want to have Square's public image and integrity rebuilt. You can't do that by saying "forget people and their complaints". Square needs to find a sweet spot that lets him make a great game in a reason amount of time (within 4 years) and not go overboard with DLC that's not a big deal. But if DLC expands a great story and has lots of extra dungeons, sidequests, and voice acting with story-telling I'd be willing to pay another $10.

 

[Crystal Power]

You have to, because they complain about things that are opinions not facts. Just because they complain about sequels doesn't mean Square is bad, it's like seeing all the people complain about Beyonce because "She get praised more than she deserves" Or people saying "Taylor Swift release to many boyfriend songs", they are free to their opinions! Doesn't mean Taylor should stop making new songs (Terrible Analogy I know). Whether we like it or not. People love the sequel other's don't. I'd prefer there were no sequels in Final Fantasy but I don't mind them.

If you want Square image to be repaired then that would have to fixed by the way they present themselves, like announcing a game 8 years ago and it still not having a release date. Or perhaps making sequels of a game no one wanted, it wasn't the sequels that were the problem but that the original FFXIII wasn't well received yet Square made sequels while Versus XIII/XV goes un-talked about.

 

[Takoyaki]

EDIT:
Trust me! I don't want sequel over new games! I highly prefer they keep making new title. But I also don't want $60 dollars worth of content in the DLC shop when it could have been included form the start! Sad thing is some games will make you spend about $40 on costumes alone! I could buy a whole new game with that money. Sure I'm not forced to buy it but why do I have to be left out? LOL.

Man, I hated the costume packs for XIII-2/LR. I wish it was included within the game. The Cloud & Yuna exclusives didn't help either.

 

[KOKAYI5]

If you want Square image to be repaired then that would have to fixed by the way they present themselves, like announcing a game 8 years ago and it still not having a release date. Or perhaps making sequels of a game no one wanted, it wasn't the sequels that were the problem but that the original FFXIII wasn't well received yet Square made sequels while Versus XIII/XV goes un-talked about.

Well you make a good point. I guess if they do sequels to games after they're full established and there's a legit need to add to the story it'd be a good idea. I'm interested in FF still. Especially 15. I just want things to go well so we can just move on in a positive direction.

 

[Squirrel Emperor]

The only issue I have really with DLC is pricing.

When you compare the amount of DLC you're getting to the amount of content you're getting in a $60 game. It's a pretty big rip off. It's unfair and makes no sense.

Because of that, I avoid DLC like the plague.

Mario Kart 8 is how you do DLC right. You can buy both DLC packs separately for $7.99 or both for $11.99. One pack gives you 3 characters, 4 vehicles and 8 tracks. So both packs together gives you 6 characters, 8 vehicles and 16 tracks. That's a damn good deal considering Mario Kart 8 has 32 tracks and the game cost $60.

Personally though, and as a long time gamer, I think DLC should be free. DLC is the equivalent of doing optional side content and unlocking stuff in a game. Back then, all that was in the game so it was basically all free. Now they're making money off of it (cause of the time and money it takes to create that stuff).

 

[Crystal Power]

The only issue I have really with DLC is pricing.

When you compare the amount of DLC you're getting to the amount of content you're getting in a $60 game. It's a pretty big rip off. It's unfair and makes no sense.

Because of that, I avoid DLC like the plague.

Mario Kart 8 is how you do DLC right. You can buy both DLC packs separately for $7.99 or both for $11.99. One pack gives you 3 characters, 4 vehicles and 8 tracks. So both packs together gives you 6 characters, 8 vehicles and 16 tracks. That's a damn good deal considering Mario Kart 8 has 32 tracks and the game cost $60.

Personally though, and as a long time gamer, I think DLC should be free. DLC is the equivalent of doing optional side content and unlocking stuff in a game. Back then, all that was in the game so it was basically all free. Now they're making money off of it (cause of the time and money it takes to create that stuff).

Ubisoft is a prime example of making screwed up DLCs. They announce DLCs when they first announced most of their games (Assassins Creed & more.....).
I do understand they have loads of developers working on one game, but whatever was made way before the game's release, shouldn't that be part of the main game's content and not reserved as extra content for people to buy? To me their DLCs feels like it should have been part of the main game.
Besides, a majority of their DLCs is generic and boring to even buy...... Did I mention they announce loads of DLCs way before the main game's release?

Nintendo has perfectly executed the use of DLC with Mario Kart 8. Their DLCs is considered to be 'extra' content for the game that the player wishes to buy. If they don't, it won't harm the player's experience in playing the game at all.
To this day, I still despise DLC. It's nothing like the N64/PS1/PS2 days. If most developers were to learn to how make DLCs properly, I would consider to change my opinion for it.
Paying DLCs is a pain, but if developers put just as much dedication to it as they would to the main game (instead of leaving it to another team of developers rather than keeping it to the visionaries of the game's core team).



Damn, it might be too late for loads of game companies/studios to change their habits of DLCs since the trend of paid DLC has gone way too long.
The best we got if developers actually take real consideration and effort into their development of DLCs rather than focusing that it will grant them 'extra cash'.

Agreed with both! Many companies charge $3 or $4 just for a single costume for a single character. Keeping in mind that's not the only costume available and isn't the only character. It all adds up and it cost way to much. For example the Tales series is doing this, which is honestly sad because the costumes used to come complete with the game and now with each new installment we must pay for these extra's that used to be free.

 

[yeah_93]

Sequels and DLC don't necessarily mean milking, or are inherently bad. While some are indeed bad, others do both right. For example, multiple yearly sequels that barely add to the previous experience feels like milking. But you can't say that a game like Mass Effect 2 was done to milk the first game. As for DLC, I remember when CoD: Modern Warfare 2 was shown at E3 in 2009, and Gamespot asked the developers about DLC plans and they were like "Uh, isn't it a little early to talk about DLC?"; whereas there is Day 1 DLC today practically everywhere. It depends on a lot of factors (pricing being one of them), but if a game like FFXV has both sequels and DLC, that wouldn't be inherently bad.

 

[yeah_93]

That's what I argued. And I also argued that it doesn't mean every company is going to do the same. Just look at the example Squirrel posted.

 

[Crystal Power]

I remember when CoD: Modern Warfare 2 was shown at E3 in 2009, and Gamespot asked the developers about DLC plans and they were like "Uh, isn't it a little early to talk about DLC?"; whereas there is Day 1 DLC today practically everywhere.

I don't play CoD or FPS, but if they said than thank goodness!

It's not right people are asking questions like "What DLC characters would you like" Rather than "What characters would you like" while the game is in development. There's a Super Smash Bros leak which has a list of DLC characters, if it's true why can't those characters be added while the game is in development.

Another thing about Tales Series, in Tales of Xillia you have to pay for swimsuit costumes as DLC. When before that Tales of Symphonia, Abyss, Vesperia, and Graces had that included in-game from the start.

 

[KOKAYI5]

DLC is the only choice Square has if they want to add to 15 while saving the money from making and distributing an entire new game as a sequel to it.

 

[King Bimpy]

DLC is the only choice Square has if they want to add to 15 while saving the money from making and distributing an entire new game as a sequel to it.

Final Fantasy XV will be the first part of a larger epic, director Tetsuya Nomura said during an interview with Famitsu at E3. But in the trailer it says, “A World of the Versus Epic”… implying that it was a piece of a larger epic. Final Fantasy XV will come to a single climax, but as for the story, I plan to continue it. When I’m working on something of this density, it becomes something extraordinarily grandiose. I had thought to cut down the volume and density, but if I did, then it wouldn’t be what I wanted it to become. Because of that, I’m considering the idea of a Final Fantasy XV compilation to make it complete.

Yes there is/are sequels.

As for DLC/Vita/mobile

There are a lot of possibilities. Developing a big title for next-gen systems takes both a lot of time and money, so we’re working a very grand scale. When it’s a standalone title, even if the title development takes several years, you’re finished playing in a short period of time. In order to have you play a game for a longer time span, I think online components are necessary. I’m taking into consideration the sort of online attributes that keep you excited and engaged in the story as it continues.

Not just PS Vita, but we’re also considering correspondence with smartphones and tablets as well. There hasn’t been a Final Fantasy that did that yet, so I’m considering new developments. As for those kinds of possibilities, I think we’re at an advantage by having changed our development methods to being PC based.

I don't believe there would be DLC even if he toyed around with the idea because there is too much riding on the game. Square Enix knows we want it now. Square Enix knows we want it finished thoroughly, which means no story centric content left out for an extra $20. Square Enix knows it is the make it break it of the franchise, but people buy Final Fantasy anyway despite how bad it may turn out. If XV lives up to its descriptions then Square Enix will have plenty of money. Doubt XV will be a DLC dumpster. Any extra content most likely would be some type of off console playing like using your phone for an app that can interact with XV.

 

[Crystal Power]

It's disappointing they are planning sequels already when the game itself hasn't even released.

 

[BladeRunner]

It's disappointing they are planning sequels already when the game itself hasn't even released.

Honestly, I think it's better when the sequels are planned and are parts of something bigger than when they are forced, unnecessary and ridiculous like X-2 or XIII-2.
If Nomura wants sequel(s) he should plan it now (maybe then it won't end up like KH with its million spin-offs and overly convoluted story, which were definitely not planned from the beginning).