Flay

Why? It's only online. No offline quests. It will be the first game to take full advantage of the PS2 HD/Ethernet combo.

This means you will have to buy the PS2 HD/Ethernet Unit. The entire unit is one piece, so it's bundled. If you don't want broadband, tough! You still have to have the HD to play.

This is going for about $150 in Japan, so it will probably be around the same here. Now if you don't want to pay for broadband, you can buy the "OnlineStation" a USB 56K modem for the PlayStation 2. It's price will be around $30 to $40.

So if you have broadband, you will be paying $150 for the hardware, $50 for the game, and $10 to $15 to play each month.
If you don't have broadband, you are talking $230 to $240 to get started, plus the monthly fee.

Now I know that you will be able to use the HD/Ethernet unit for other games, so the cost isn't totally based on just one game. But in this case, Sony and Square are forcing you to buy the add-on in order to play the game.

Will PS2 owners be willing to shell out the big bucks to upgrade? I wouldn't. Not until more games are released that have online capablilty.

Sony needs to give Ps2 owners some sort of deal for getting the add-on and signing up for FFXI. Maybe half price for the add-on if you sign up for a year of service with Square. Something like that anyway if they want this to be successful.

I also wonder if Sony will be charging a fee to play their online games. Gotta pay for those servers somehow.

Info taken from this story.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories...9660-3,00.html

Liver&Onions

F - that.

I heard FFXI is going to be closs-platform...PC, GC, Xbox, PS2... why shouldn't it be from a money perspective, this would make Square huge coin.

BUt yeah, I'm not down with paying monthly to play a game. That's why the only online games I play are BLizzard games.

F- that.

Flay

From that link I provided (dated Jan 16th), they say just the PS2 and PC.

I don't think Microsoft wants to deal with them unless Square falls in line with their online pricing plan. And I think Nintendo was just waiting to see how online play turns out.

huh?

or you could just play on your PC for whatever your broad band costs you, plus the cost of the game.


i can't see anyone spending 150 just to play it on the PS2.

Kellehair

I think Square might fall flat on their face with this one.

ScandalUMD

That's not why. Sony more or less owns Square, and they don't want Final Fantasy on any competing console. They probably agreed to absorb some of the risk, in exchange for keeping FFXI off the GC and XBox.

BigDave

It'd be cool to play FF online, but not for that price. I'd probably get the HD/Ethernet upgrade, but there's no way I'm going to pay $10-$15 a month to play a game.

quietsoul

damn_it! i'm a big supporter of squaresoft games since a lot of them are top-quality. but, what, in zeus's butthole, are they thinking? squaresoft might fall flat on their face on this one.

suckekekekeke.

ScandalUMD

I think so too. But sony will either eat the loss, or completely buy square out, and have them become a Sony second party.

On the other hand, this game may be the best MMORPG ever. I don't like that kind of game at all. From what I understand, all MMORPGS mostly consist of people who have no lives playing for 15 hours a day, becoming immensely powerful, and making life miserable for everyone else.

And meanwhile, Square has committed all of their top talent to something called "Kingdom Hearts" starring Goofy, instead of a Chrono game to hold me over until FFXII.

Flay

Yes, I think everyone knows that already. I never said that was why. I just gave reasons why MS or Nintendo wouldn't want an online only FFXI at this point.

MS is planning to charge one flat fee a month to play all their online games. Square wants to charge extra just to play their 1 game. That just won't work.

Nintendo is taking a "wait and see" approach to the entire online gaming arena. Nothing concrete, means nothing online.

Personally, I don't care if they do or don't. I'm still not paying $10 to $15 bucks a month to play just 1 game on any system.

Groucho

Still, many people do. Look at the popularity of EverQuest, Ultima Online, Asheron's Call, etc. Square is obviously going for this crowd.

Speaking of Asheron's Call, I wouldn't be surprised to see that ported to the Xbox since it is a Microsoft game. It would work quite well on that system, although they'd need to also make a keyboard add-on for the console.

Flay

Oh I know PC gamers are used to this concept, but it remains to be seen if console gamers will pay-to-play a game at a time, especially in this case.

Square and Sony will have a hard time convincing PS2 owners to fork over $10 to $15 a month if they already have to lay out at least $200 just to be able to play.

Kellehair

PC RPGs and console RPGs are 2 very different worlds. There's no 2 ways about it. I doubt your average PC gamer will care much about an FF game and I doubt your average FF fan will be interested in playing online.

Tuan Jim

I read a news article about a week ago saying that in a survey of Japanese gamers and stores, less than 30% said they were interested in FF XI and probably around 20% said they were pretty sure they'd get it. That's off the top of my head, but the numbers were surprisingly low -- not their type of game I guess.

Tuan Jim

Outlaw

I really like Square and the Final Fantasy series but this game hasn't looked that great to me even from the start, mostly because its only online. I don't like MMORPG type games because you always have tons of cheating, hacking, rude people, and then it becomes no fun to play. The other thing about MMORPG's is that compared to offline games, they are lacking in the story department, which is usually FF's forte. To me it seems like Sony is depending on Square's Playonline service to launch the way for broadband games on consoles. Who knows, if they make it good enough I might try it out, I'll wait until the reviews come out. It might be fun to race chocobo's against other people (the FF7 style races).

For now though, they've still got some really sweet games lined up. I'm more excited about Kingdom Hearts and especially Xenosaga *drool*!!! That game looks awesome!!

Josh H

That's ridiculous. You shouldn't have to pay a monthly fee to play games online, and it's ridiculous to have to buy all that hardware to play games. That certainly makes me glad that I hate online games. I hope this crap flops, I don't want game consoles to basically turn into pc's. Consoles should just be $199 systems that play games IMO, not set-top boxes.

darkside

Don't online game, thats the main reason I play on a console. However, I guess I would get the PC version if I really wanted to play FFXI. I will probably skip it though. Since they are charging to play online they had better give the FFXI game away for free. I hope they don't expect people to pay $50 for the game and another $10 a month just to play it.

Liquid Death

I think you guys are forgetting Phantasy Star Online (DC) which sounds similar to this new concept from Square, which was, I think, moderately successful (as far as the DC was concerned).

ScandalUMD

In fact, Microsoft would probably love a Square game on their system, and would bend over backwards to accomodate.

As far as Microsoft's flat fee for all games, that will probably apply to Microsoft published games. Square is paying for its own servers, and MMORPGs are very server intensive, so per game price plans are the way those will be paid for in the near future.

Servers like Battle.net and most Zone.com games require servers for matchmaking, but have a users computer host the game. MMORPGs must be played on the developer's server network, which gets very expensive. Hence the costs.

Unless Microsoft absorbs some of the cost of hosting massively multiplayer games, their flat fee structure won't allow third parties to run games like Everquest.

Square's plan is the same plan that worked for Everquest, and the Final Fantasy name and the Square reputation for quality will carry them pretty far.

Of course, I don't intend to play FFXI either. I think MMORPGs are tremendous wastes of time and money. There's no sense of achievement. You just spend hours accumulating things until you get bored with the game. In fact, that's my general beef with open ended games in general.

ScandalUMD

That's what I said when Ultima Online came out. But people paid it for Ultima, and paid it for Everquest, and paid it for Asheron's call. I don't think anyone has taken a spill on an MMORPG yet. And Square's will probably be the slickest ever, and it may entice a lot of online gamers to the PS2 who would otherwise be drawn to the XBox. Just because you're not interested, don't underestimate the importance of this game. If it succeeds, it's a major feather in the cap for the PS2. A system seller, really. And if it fails, Square will probably be sold to Sony.

Tuan Jim

I'm pretty sure Cornered Rat Studios is pretty far in the hole with WWII Online, and IIRC, Funcom and Anarchy Online aren't too far behind.

Tuan Jim

djones6746

Not sure about that.....maybe...maybe not...but I am sure that I will not be purchasing this title so they have lost at least one customer. I truly do not care to play online games...played them many times in the past on the pc. They are more of a pain in the arse then they are fun....just my opinion.

Square will definitely reconsider online only games once they see their profits do not meet expectations.

darkside

How did Phantasy Star Online do once people had to start paying to play? I know the first version that was free did okay for Sega.

Flay

Not to mention the hardware was already in place. DC owners only had to buy the game and nothing else.

Liquid Death

Well, its kinda hard to look at that and compare it to FFXI, coz when PSO v2 came out (that required people to pay to play), the DC was almost dead. I don't think that people were too excited about having to pay for ver. 2 when ver. 1 was free.

Despite that, I don't have the time to play an online game, so I never got into PSO and as much as I love the FF series, I'll be avoiding that one too.