Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Understanding the successful relaunch of Final Fantasy XIV
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Understanding the successful relaunch of Final Fantasy XIV

April 18, 2014 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 2
 

I was wondering if you had some kind of perspective that people who were originally working on the project lacked, and where that came from.

NY: This doesn't apply to just the team that was on the original Final Fantasy XIV, but Square Enix in general. During the PS2 generation, Square Enix had great success.

Their process involved a lot of manual, handmade processes. Once you succeed, you tend to want to follow suit with what worked. But they didn't take the time to notice what's around them, and they seemed to not notice the importance of the game experience and enjoying the gameplay. It was more about upgrading the graphics quality, and with the original Final Fantasy XIV, that was one of the failures that I wanted to point out to that team. They were concentrating too much on just trying to upgrade the quality of the graphics. But after that, Square Enix as a whole, I feel, kind of changed.

Do you keep a close eye on what's happening in the industry?

NY: I've been attending GDC for about five years now, and every time I do think, "Why is it so different?" I do personally like playing North American MMO games, and always get the impression, "Why is it so different?" The quality of the games that are made is so different.

For the Square Enix titles, it is okay if we build our games on our experience with our successful games, but now that the generation has changed to the PlayStation 3 and then moving on to the next generation, I know that process is not going to work.

Every time I attend GDC, I take what I learn from those conferences and I try to fully implement that back into the games that I work on. In terms of the original Final Fantasy XIV, I do believe that it was a sort of necessary failure, because of that Square Enix is now changing.

This is pretty nostalgic, but every time I'd go to GDC, I'd report back in Square Enix Tokyo. Of course, this is optional, but I'd get the opportunity to present my findings and people could come and listen to it. But the impression was always, "Oh, Yoshida went to America again, and he was caught by the American bug! He's talking about how you should change the way you build games!" It's really nostalgic to look back at how people reacted.

Do you feel vindicated now? 

NY: That's a tough question to answer. I'm sure all of the developers at Square Enix kind of already had that notion, and it's just that you don't know until you actually trip and fall, or your game fails.

I don't have a strong sense of feeling vindicated now. But going through this very tough experience at Square Enix, I'm really glad there's an opportunity to talk about that experience, as well as the struggles we went through, and I think it's very fortunate that I was given that opportunity to do that.

What's the next wave of changes you're observing that you'd want to tell the developers in Tokyo to keep an eye on? 

NY: I don't intend to talk about individual, granular topics when I return to Japan, but being here at GDC, everybody loves games, and there are so many indie developers. They're people who have been waiting for a great game to come out, but it never did, so they went ahead and made their own games. So I want to relay to the staff back in Japan that it is very important for us to be gamers as well. And that of course business is important, promotion is important, PR is important, but we ourselves have to make a game that we enjoy playing as well. We need to become gamers ourselves. That's what I intend to say. I touch upon this in my presentation as well, but that's what I want to relay back to the staff in Japan.

Final Fantasy XIV is a premium MMO, with a subscription, which is increasingly rare. Does the premium MMO have a future? Can only a few games do this, nowadays? Many subscription MMOs are converting to free-to-play. 

NY: There's one thing that I would like for you to take notice: All large scale MMOs never start out as free-to-play. For example, The Elder Scrolls Online is taking the subscription business model. Rift, as well as Star Wars: The Old Republic, they changed over. Those started out as subscription and flipped over to free-to-play.

Of course, with an MMO you have your loyal players who play the monthly subscription. That, in turn, allows the developer to hire very competent staff and to continuously update content. You have a sort of stability, and you're assured you will have a constant, good gameplay experience. I'm sure players and creators alike, we believe that the subscription model would be the way to maintain a game and continually update and provide new content, but of course that's the ideal.

Of course, that being said, with free-to-play, the client is free, and you can play the game for free, and it might be a great way to attract new players to join in on the game. At the same time, the developers are developing the main part of the content for free, and they wouldn't have the revenue unless they sold the items that are outside of the main part of the game. It could be an item, or it could be experience points, or it could be ease of gameplay time -- and it's not necessarily the actual gameplay experience.

The developers constantly want to provide the best gameplay experience, and they want to develop the main part of the game, but they have to worry about, "Oh, what kind of items can we create to make our revenue quota for this month?" And of course players, on their side, want to continue playing the main part of the game, but they're forced to purchase items that don't necessarily add to their gameplay experience.

There are pros and cons to both business models, of course, and you have to pick and choose what makes sense for each title. What I feel is that you don't have to restrict to just one option. Maybe, if a game decides to have the choice for being a loyal customer and subscribing with a monthly fee, and still having a freemium element added into it, that's something that is not impossible to do. But I am sure that with MMORPG producers, they want their players to be able to enjoy the game for the long term. That's why they tend to want to choose the subscription model.

Then you would wonder, "Why are games switching over to the free-to-play mode?" That's because an MMORPG requires an immense amount of funding. We usually have investors supporting the funding for the different titles. They'd look at the subscriber numbers for the first couple of months, and they'd want their money back because they'd see the decline in the subscriber numbers.

Once investors pull out, the game will not be able to update, because they don't have sufficient funding. So some titles have to make the hard decision to switch over to free-to-play and try to gain a quick buck, pretty much, and raise their ARPU, and try to gain revenue in that manner. I feel that they're not flipping over because they want to; sometimes, they're forced to go into that because they need to update.

Yoshida's thoughts on business models, from his GDC 2014 talk

When you look at the indie scene and you see games like DayZ and Rust, which are running in alpha, being developed as players play them. And yet, players are flooding into these games. What does that tell you about the audience of online games? 

NY: I think it all boils down to, if the game is fun, people will be willing to pay money for it. You earlier asked about, "A Realm Reborn is one of those rare cases in which a subscription model game is successful, and will it continue its model?" I feel that, again, people will put in the money for it if they feel that the game is fun to play and interesting to continue playing.

I bring up the example of World of Warcraft: Of course people have been saying that the subscription numbers have declined and declined, but if you look at it, it's 8 million people, and it's actually still increasing.

I don't think the business model is changing, per se. Maybe it's because in the last five years, so many games have come out, and there are too many to choose from. Nowadays the game companies that cannot produce as fun or as interesting a game would close down, and the companies that would make those games that stand out, people are going to jump on it. I welcome that change, because it means I just have to continue making a fun game to play.

There's a game that was introduced by an indie creator and they say that the hack and slash is much more fun than Diablo III. So I welcome that change. It will give us a good kind of pressure to continue striving for better.


Article Start Previous Page 2 of 2

Related Jobs

Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[10.24.14]

Tools Programmer-Central Team
Crystal Dynamics
Crystal Dynamics — Redwood City, California, United States
[10.23.14]

Senior/Lead VFX Artist
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.23.14]

Level Designer
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand
[10.23.14]

Lead Game Designer






Comments


Ardney Carter
profile image
I've said this before but I will re-iterate. The people responsible for this over at Square deserve mad props for not only attempting this in the 1st place but for actually pulling it off. To be able to recognize that you screwed up and then swallow the costs for the fans until you fix it (or however long they held off on subs. Forget off the top of my head) is laudable.

Stephen Horn
profile image
If memory serves, they had subscriptions turned off for about a year. They also ran a loyalty program, granting reduced monthly service fees and other extras, including a custom mount, for fans who subscribed for at least 3 months before they halted service for "1.0". Anyone who had purchased "1.0" were able to freely upgrade to "2.0", and Collector's Edition owners from 1.0 got all the in-game Collector's Edition stuff for 2.0. Also, anyone who had purchased 1.0 were also able to upgrade to the Collector's Edition of 2.0 for a reduced price.

I'd say 2.0 went out of its way to try and make up for 1.0, and I'm very pleased with the result, and I very much hope the game has been and continues to be a financial success for S-E.

Terry Matthes
profile image
I loved playing the Beta and can't say enough good things about this entire situation. They listened, I mean they really listened; they just didn't lend a paltry ear. They put into action what came out of the fans mouths.

That coupled with a complete re working of the dev team and project goals paid off. I feel that FFXIV is a true spiritual successor to FFXI and if you're a MMO fan it deserves your attention!

Tim Hanarong
profile image
the new gameplay is ok but why downgraded the graphics? Some of the character movements in 1.0 have also been removed, why? We could lower the graphic setting in the option menu if the pc was not powerful enough. FFXIV 1.0 didn't fail because the graphics were too powerful, it failed because the game didn't have any content.

SE promised before shutting down the 1.0 server that FFXIV ARR would have better graphics. So many people were looking forward to this for over 2 years and it turned out that SE just lied, they just did the opposite thing. that's not cool.

Christian Nutt
profile image
Actually, Yoshida did address this at length in his GDC talk. The prioritization of graphical fidelity in the development of the original version was a big, big reason for its failure -- misspent resources, developmentally speaking, that both impacted the game's performance and also meant that the developers were spending time on the wrong thing (graphics instead of gameplay). So it's a very deliberate decision.

Jim Thompson
profile image
Understanding the successful relaunch of FFXIV is like understanding an eclipse in 1250.

We can speculate, but we don't have the tools quite yet to figure out exactly why it worked.

Terry Matthes
profile image
I thought the article did a pretty good job of explaining why. You don't?

Iain Murdock
profile image
Actually de constructing the success is rather easy, it comes down to some simple ideas and comparisons between versions 1.0 & 2.0.

== Simplicity ==
Version 1.0-1.23 had virtually no guidance on stepping into the world you were greeted with nothing but the ability to roam, the developers expected players to find out on their own what was needed to be done next. It could take players an entire day to figure out the simple directions needed to progress (some players enjoyed this the majority did not)

Version 2.0 from the second you entered the world greeted you with simple guidance, a stream-lined quest line which followed in a way that directed players in the way they needed to go whilst showing them the things in the world they'd need to find.

The UI, graphics, story-line, battle mechanics, abilities, item attainment, crafting, gathering, exploring, content access. All of this was simplified or done is such a way that players could immediately understand what to do, or simply enjoy it and learn from it over a period of time.


== User Interface ==
The User Interface in 1.23 although minimalistic was unwieldy and slow to use, in version 2.0 the developers took on the task of taking the elements from other MMOs that worked (whilst leaving out the bits that didn't). Leaving a modern, clean and easy on the eyes UI which players knew how to use right from the get-go.

== Graphics ==
1.23's character graphics were excellent, unparalleled for it's time in an MMO. The physical weight of the animations, the highly detailed textures and models almost lured you into a false sense of "This game is going to be awesome" for the opening cut-scene.

However, the design team made a lot of mistakes, texture detail where detail was not needed. High Polygonal objects where detail was not needed led the game to be VERY slow for even a decent gaming computer at the time.

Although this was a Final Fantasy game with a graphical standard to meet, an MMO should always be accessible to a vast array of players which 1.23 simply couldn't offer.


== Community Feedback ==
Absolutely everything that was wrong with 1.23 was voiced by the players in the Alpha/Beta stages, but were promptly ignored and the game was pushed for release with (as it says in the article) the mind-set that they could "Fix it later, our players will understand", taking the fan-base for granted leading to the game inevitable demise at the time.

During 2.0's announcement, planning, development and even early Alpha stages, community feedback was paramount to it's success. Everything players requested, wanted, loved and hated were taken into consideration. All the volumes off feedback were listened to and 2.0 became the game that the player originally wanted.

Each Letter from the Producer and Broadcasted Live-Letter from the producer would reveal new upcoming content to involved players and get them excited for upcoming content, answering players questions and concerns via a live stream.


== Content ==
The vast array of available content in 2.0 compared to 1.23 was enough to keep players hooked for months instead of days. With a large main story quest-line to guide the players from Level 1-50 and then the array of end-game content made available afterwards it was enough to keep players interested to fit into the "Major Patch every 3 months" schedule the development team had created.

Every 3 months a new batch of content is released, with each new patch players come back in their droves.



To stop myself dragging on as there's plenty more to say, and I think if I had the time I could write a 5,000 word article about all the various changes that were made in correct detail, but it simply boils down the development team listening to their players, researching the market and understanding what the players really wanted and what would keep them playing.

Iain Murdock
profile image
It's actually very easily to see.

As someone who was there to witness the original alpha/beta right up to today, there are some clear points;

Community Feedback and Application
A simplified and enjoyable learning process
An array of casual/hardcore content
A balance between graphics/performance

I could write a 10,000 word article with ease about the various aspects of how FFXIVs transition between 1.23>2.0 was a well thought out transition that did the impossible on regaining the fan bases trust, but alas my character count is limited.

Stephen Horn
profile image
I'm really curious what specific things you think we need to better understand.


none
 
Comment: