Jump to content

Talk:Square Enix/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Merge with Squaresoft

Shouldn't this be merged with the Squaresoft article?? Jacoplane 01:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you mean the Square Co., Ltd. article, right? And, uh, no, I can't see why. There's a much stronger case for merging it with this Enix article, as the "new" company was formed out of Enix, not Square (the former absorbed the latter). That being said, there's not a particularly strong case for either: Square, Enix, and Square Enix are not the same thing, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to confuse the issue by trying to pretend that they are. – Seancdaug 02:55, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, get your point. Sorry about adding that category, i see you removed it only last week. Jacoplane 03:39, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh, no problem. Happens a lot, actually, and it's easy enough to fix. – Seancdaug 04:04, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
There's a List of Square Enix games, and it seems to list every single Squaresoft and Enix game ever made. Should it be taken down since there's already a list in each of those systems + this one, or should it be left up for reference? ~ Hibana

Square founding date

In response to the anon. editor who keeps adding the Square Co., Ltd. founding date to the infobox: please stop. I understand why you're adding it, but it's misleading, as Square Enix is the successor to Enix, not Square. This is explained in the introduction to the article: Enix purchased Square. Square Enix is a continuation of Enix, not of Square, and adding Square's founding to the infobox is extremely misleading. – Seancdaug 02:19, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

As of recent, some users have added Square Co., Ltd. to the founding date. While I personally don't see anything wrong with it, shouldn't we reach a consensus here first before committing the change? It's been kept with only Enix's founding date for 2.5 years, after all. ~ Aresmo 19:55, February 23, 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy: Unlimited On PC

There's a 2003 PC card-battle game produced by Armada Printing called Final Fantasy: Unlimited On PC, based on the anime series. Does anyone have any information of this game, like its connection to Square Enix besides the name? ~ Hibana 13:36, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Corporate Culture?

Hey. Does anyone know anything about Square-Enix's corporate culture? Are they known for being creative, stodgy, old-fashioned, new-wave, or any other adjective you could name? In general, what's the company's reputation? Thanks. -- Brasswatchman 8:26 PM EST, November 30, 2005. Very,new age ,dreamlike,imaginitive. It is of new waved / creative.. My step dad works is the president of square enix Co but some people like to creators of dragon quest are... stodgy...

Enix's Online games?

If I remembered correctly, before Square made FFXI, Enix also published numerous online games for Asian countries, some continued to this day. One example is Moli Baobei (魔力宝贝), which can be found on Square Enix's official Chinese website. Shouldn't these online games that are only found in Asia be also included under Online Gaming? ~ Aresmo 16:55, June 16, 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

I'm not really sure how to handle this: how do you describe the company that made a game before the merger? Would you still describe Final Fantasy VIII as being made by Squaresoft, since that was the name of the company when it was finished, or would the name be retroactively changed to Square-Enix? Master Deusoma 16:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In the articles for the games created before the merger (about midway into 2003), we say they were either made by Square Co. or Enix. If you notice in Final Fantasy Tactics Advance, the game was released and published by Square in Japan but Square Enix in the US, because the latter was after the merger. ~ Hibana 22:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Nintendo published it in North America, Square Enix published it in Europe. You are correct though, games that were released before the merger are described by the companies name at the time, so Final Fantasy VIII would be from Square Soft and not Square Enix. TJ Spyke 06:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

I am quite saddened that Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is not included under the "film" subtitle in this article. I guess it is because it was made under square pictures? I just hope it has not been left out due to its box office blunders as there are quite a few fans around, although far and few between, that absolutely adore this movie and respect its place within all of Square-Enix's Final Fantasy based franchises. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.168.233.251 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmmmm... it appears that TSW has been on the article at least since December 12. I bulleted the films so it's easier to see. I dunno. I liked it, and so did Roger Ebert and he seems like a pretty knowledgeable guy about movies. Axem Titanium 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not any of us actually like the film, why are we including it when it was produced and released before the merger? Mentioning it's financial failure as a leading cause for the merger might be worthwhile (though we should have a reliable source for it, just as standard practice), but including it as part of the list of Square Enix properties is slightly misleading, I should think.... – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be included, but I suppose it would depend a lot on how much reliable info exists on Square's financial health pre-merger. I always found it a tad suspicious that the movie was the single blunder that brought down Square (Square Pictures, yes..but the parent company?). Kensuke Aida 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Absorption

According to the first section: "Square officially absorbed Enix, [...]"

Shouldn't this be "Square was officially absorbed by Enix" instead? (58.188.97.134 10:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC))

This has been addressed. Axem Titanium 20:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
What about the fact that all the gaming news sites that I've seen that reported on the "absorbtion" actually use the term "merge" which has a totally different meaning to "absorb"? Which is why I think in the founding details, Square should also be listed considering, although they were technically bought out, the two companies still merged. It's not like they just bought out Square then sacked all of its employees. It's still Square and Enix. Arrowny 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
There's not really any difference between "merge" and "absorb." As the article on mergers and acquisitions says, the distinction is frequently made solely "for political or marketing reasons." There is, as you suggest, a colloquial difference between the two: "merge" implies a mutually agreed upon arrangement that is beneficial to both parties, not a hostile takeover situation. But I think this is pretty well covered in the article itself: the sentence quoted above refers to the actual legal status and is unequivocally true. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I still think it's a bit misleading not having the Square info somewhere at least though (unless I've missed it) as it seems Enix suddenly decided to rename themselves. Arrowny 23:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, that's a fair point. I think it's a mistake to split hairs that, technically speaking, don't exist, but that doesn't mean that we can't improve the wording. I'll take a crack at it and see if I can come up with something preferable. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

PSP & Wii Virtual Console Support Sections

These sections seem a little... useless. The PSP Support section is basically just a short list of in-development games, and it's already been established on the Virtual Console page that they've announced support, and currently they've only announced one title for Japan only (at least thus far). It seems to me that these articles need to be either improved or deleted, because there really seems to be no reason for them to be here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JusticeLeaguer8 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

I feel the same. All of the PSP games are already listed in the List of Square Enix games page, and of what significance is it if another section is made about SE releasing a single game on the Virtual Console? Pikku 02:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's an attempt to expand à la the Nintendo DS section (with a previous fanboy attempt to overwrite the NDS section with a PSP section as part of the drama). It doesn't really work though, and we don't really need the article of every developer being updated as Wii Virtual Console and PlayStation Store adds old games to their inventory. Kelvinc 09:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
These sections are totally out of place in the article: Nintendo DS/PSP/Wii Virtual Console Support. They're very specific instances of what the company does and I don't think they should be in an article that amounts to an overview of the company. SynergyBlades 20:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Might we reconsider putting back at least the DS section? It did contain some useful info. SE has been supporting the system aggressively, and having a section dedicated to their commitment is fairly useful. Pikku 08:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Source? Kariteh 16:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
20+ DS games produced or being produced. Besides, I thought the bit about how Nintendo snubbed SE in the past interesting. 74.227.19.2 02:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Right, so you have no source. Kariteh 08:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if there is no source, the article is a lot shorter now. Pikku 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Source? Any gaming news site would obviously show it. Arrowny 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, right. Keep talking. Kariteh 06:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone has some common sense issues. Arrowny 00:01, 09 June 2007 (UTC)

Commercials?

Does anyone know which game commercials had the Square Enix name pronounced as "Squa Enix"? 209.91.61.251 02:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Crystal Tools

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was keep the existing Crystal Tools article.

Although this engine may be unique to the development process used by the company, it was agreed that game engine pages are almost always separate articles due to the fact that future games may use the engine, which leads to expandability in the future. Only articles with no room for expansion and very little information should be merged in a case like this, as per WP:MERGE. -- Poet  Talk  05:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I think Crystal Tools should be merged to this article because it would make this page richer in content. The Crystal Tools article is very short and doesn't assert much notability (just because FFXIII and co. are notable doesn't make this engine notable). The scope of the engine article is very limited; there isn't much you can say about its nature or its particularities. It would be better to merge it into this Square Enix article in some section, since it's one of the implementation of the "polymorphic content" philosophy of the company. FightingStreet (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to merge here. Perhaps the FFXIII article? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be if there were an actual "Polymorphic content" section describing the philosophy of the company. Taku Murata said that the point of making this engine was so that it could be used for lots of different games (before this, a new engine was coded from scratch for each new game). This all fits with Yoichi Wada's policy about gaining more profits with less expenditure. FightingStreet (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge somewhere :) By the way, I also noticed this article Final Fantasy VII (Famicom), I'm speechless, and not clear on what to do with it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think a merge is a good idea in this case. 202.86.217.28 (talk) 12:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think a merge is a good idea in this case. FightingStreet (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a bad idea because the game engine IS a game engine, while a company IS a company. A cat IS a mammal, but they are in different sections. Jerry Liu (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't merge--RafaeldKsonic (talk) 09:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Game engines are almost always separate articles. Look at the Source Engine, Unreal Engine, MT Framework, etc. While it doesn't have any games using it now, it will; it would only be merged to be split off later. BCWhims (talk) 16:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)BCWhims
Keep - for the reason mentioned by BCWhims. Godheval (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the majority here that it's not a good idea to merge. Can anyone find an instance where the game engine used by a company is actually within the company article (beyond just being mentioned)? Looking at the Crystal Tools article, there's actually quite a bit of information there, and it deserves its own article. I think BCWhims has a good point, in that the article for Cystal Tools will be expanded in the future as more games are released with it. If anything, it could be mentioned in the company article along with other engines they used, but putting all of that information in there seems silly. Why then wouldn't you include information on ALL of the engines they have used over the years? That would make for a very messy article.Poet  Talk  04:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sony Exclusive?

Can we get a definite (if it exists) yes or no on whether Square Enix have decided to go exclusively to Sony? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaerun (talk • contribs) 09:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Square Enix is not a Sony-exclusive developer. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Public Opinion

Some mention needed to be made of Square Enix's failing BBB grades prior to their joining. It seems very suspicious that as soon as they've paid dues to the BBB, their grade is boosted that significantly, despite a relatively stable set of complaint numbers. Although "agreeing" to abide by the BBB's rules (via joining) is laudable, it doesn't render their consistent failing grades in previous years meaningless. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was common practice in business. Kariteh (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Thought what was common practice? Receiving a better grade for joining? Perhaps. But again: does that make their previous grades irrelevant? I'm not proposing we keep track of every grade for every year (though I'm not against it), but I think certainly a company with a long reputation should be assessed fairly over time. Otherwise, companies could simply clear their slate/history of any wrongdoing. Their previous grades should remain available for the public eye. Fortunately, the previous revisions of this page provide a reference for previous grades. Revisions from August 2007 report a "B", July 2007 a "C", June 2007 a "D" and in May 2007 and prior, an "F". I have cited the May 2007 revision as the source. 75.40.251.3 (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Project GB

I think it's safe to say this "game" (internal project) won't be released publicly. See [1] for details. The paragraph should be merged into this article IMO. Kariteh (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge ~ Hibana 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep - If it is a separate game, then it requires separate mention. Besides, if we got into the habit of putting all Square Enix properties in the article, it would quickly become too long. Godheval (talk) 03:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Have you read the DSFanboy external link? It doesn't appear to be a game; rather, it was an internal-only project, and despite DSFanboy's wishful thinking about a public release, it seems like it will likely not be released publicly (it's been one year without any news). If Square Enix ever announces a public release date, it could definitely be un-merged, but for now there isn't much reason to have these 3 sentences in a separate article. Kariteh (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge - The information in the article is very vague at best. If the project were to be released (thus making more information available), an article may be warranted. If the game is not going to be released, then I suppose what little information exists could be trimmed down to nothing more than a mention in the Video Games section. Even then, since the game is possibly out of production, perhaps it should only be mentioned in the List of Square Enix games. Poet  Talk  05:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Square Enix Music Online

A new page (Square Enix Music Online) was created which is dedicated specifically to music; it seems more appropriate to include it in this article since it is just a couple of paragraphs. The article seems like advertising; if it's mentioned here as part of the overall company, that might be less so.  Frank  |  talk  11:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But Square Enix Music Online is not part of Square Enix. It's an independent website.62.15.151.242 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Merge request removed.  Frank  |  talk  13:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring of the article after Square Enix's Company Split?

As can be seen here:

http://www.square-enix.com/jp/company/e/news/2008/download/20080425en_32.pdf

Square Enix is going to become a Holding Company. You can go to the last page of the PDF file to see the new company structure. My question is, will this article become something like the Sega Sammy Holdings and Namco Bandai Holdings, where the holding companies are listed by themselves, while their subsidiaries (and brands) have their own articles as part of the Square Enix Holdings main article? Or maybe I should ask this on the WikiProject Square Enix talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yottamol (talk • contribs) 14:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've changed the company name into Square Enix Holdings Co., Ltd. See:
http://www.square-enix.com/eng/index.html
Please, would anyone respond to my proposal? Yottamol (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
It makes the most sense, I think, to leave it the way it is- refer to the company by it's top-level holding company name, since that's the official name, but I don't see the point in breaking out the holding company or the country-level companies from the overall "square enix" article, which covers the structure, histories, and properties of the company as a whole. Saying that square enix is structured with a holding company owning individual country-level companies that handle operations in those countries takes a sentence, not an article. --PresN (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

square

SQUARE-is a polygon which can be qualified as: 

      *Parallelogram
      *Square
      *Trapezoid
      *Rectangle  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.4.199 (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

European operation of Square Enix

Do you think that my addition of the European operations of Square Enix Ltd. are valid and/or relevant to the article? --Antster1983 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Multi-platform development

The article states "However, Square Enix is not developing its major titles exclusively for any console in the seventh generation, but will instead release the next major installment in the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy XIII on both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 in North America and Europe. " Currently planned is an exclusive major title, which would be Final Fantasy Verses XIII, exclusive to PS3. While the company has indeed stated that it plans to severely cut back on single platform development, stating that there will be no seventh generation exclusives for major titles is inaccurate as there is a currently planned exclusive major title.Tevlen (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


Production

the production only listed dragonquest, final fantasy, and kingdom hearts, i believe there is much more, like star ocean, secret of mana, and many other stuff. what about the manga they published?UserRosen Lorena 17:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

a few years ago square reworked their team and said their core development would concentrate on those 3 series, they have done hundreds of games it would be impossible to list them all. Secret of Mana isn't a series its part of the Seiken Densetsu series, which probably would be worth listing, but its not so much a 'mainstream' series, the 3 listed are their only true mainstream/big selling/big budget series chocobogamer mine 18:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

question due to eidos takeover

should tomb raider be added to the 'products' in the information box at the top? i know at the moment at least eidos is still a company itself just owned by sqex but its a bigger series than say anything taito produced so I think it might be worthwhile having it there. I haven't added it in case you dont think it should go there, waiting for feedback chocobogamer mine 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My only concern with that is that none of those games have come out since the buyout, so maybe not. With the recent layoffs at Crystal Dynamics (50-60 people) and SE's pledge to keep Eidos separate, who knows what they are actually planning with existing Eidos IP. But I dunno. I see someone removed Space Invaders from the box, oh well. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Twenty five of Square Enix's video games were included in Famitsu magazine's top 100 games?

The line "Twenty five of Square Enix's video games were included in Famitsu magazine's top 100 games, seven being in the top ten list, with Final Fantasy X claiming the number one position"

I count 2 in that list. Indeed was a quick count. Seeing that FFX is being considered raises an obvious point, why are games published by Squaresoft counted as Square Enix games? Shouldn't perhaps revise this statement, or word it a little better?125.236.135.222 (talk) 22:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

when companies merge they merge their history/legacy. this statement is therefore accurate and there is no need for it to be changed. remember, squaresoft originally published as square, also ffx2 was published under both squaresoft and square enix so it just makes it more confusing.
think i counted 27 though (think someone forgot romancing saga and xenogears)...:
FFX (Squaresoft) FFVII (Squaresoft) DQIII (Enix) DQVIII (Square-Enix) FFIV (Squaresoft) FFIII (Squaresoft) DQVII (Enix) DQV (Enix) DQIV (Enix) FFV (Squaresoft) Xenogears (Squaresoft) DQII (Enix) Kingdom Hearts (Squaresoft) FFVIII (Squaresoft) FFIX (Squaresoft) FFVI (Squaresoft) Valkyrie Profile (Enix) Chrono Trigger (Squaresoft) Kingdom Hearts II (Square-Enix) DQI (Enix) FFX2 (Squaresoft (J)/Square-Enix (RoW)) DQVI (Enix) DQV remake (Square Enix) Romancing Saga (Squaresoft) FFII (Squaresoft) FFI (Squaresoft) FF Tactics (Squaresoft)
chocobogamer mine 23:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Projects >> Video Games >> Image of Dragon Quest?

Why is there an image of Dragon Quest under the section Projects >> Video Games, and not an image of Final Fantasy. Historically, Final Fantasy has been their most valuable and profitable asset.

It would make sense to replace the image of the Dragon Quest game with that of a Final Fantasy game, which is really their biggest asset. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkhava (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is their biggest asset in Japan, even if it pales in comparison with Final Fantasy worldwide. For the Japanese company, both Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy are equally important in their home country, so the image of Dragon Quest is obviously not out of place at all. Yottamol (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources

[2] - localization陣内Jinnai 17:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Localization of Square Enix video games Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Square Enix's Product Development Divisions

Let's discuss all the Product Development Division stuff here before the next wave of mass edits/mass reverts. Jonathan Hardin' (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Square (now Square Enix)/Enix (now Square Enix) throughout wiki?

At a quick glance, it looks like most, if not all, (separate) Square and Enix releases have been edited to describe them as being developed, published, etc. by "Square (now Square Enix)" or "Enix (now Square Enix)". Is this really necessary or appropriate? It seems somewhat revisionist to be calling attention to events that occurred decades later on articles about NES games and such. Not having done any deep research into this phenomenon, does anyone know if this was actually agreed upon somewhere, or was it just somebody's pet project? Should these changes--which have stood for years in some cases--be reverted, and if so, would it warrant the use of a bot? It does seem to be more prevalent than would be convenient for a human editor to handle, see Google results for site:wikipedia.org "now Square Enix". - Vague | Rant 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, other articles are no manual of style, but there seems to be no solid precedent among other games released by companies who later changed their names. Some historic Infogrames games are simply credited to Infogrames (e.g., Alone in the Dark), while others are anachronistically credited to Atari despite being Infogrames-era (e.g. Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, which bears an Infogrames logo right on its cover).
In some cases such as DMA Design/Rockstar North, mentions of the latter name are perhaps justified by just how much better known the later names are--Rockstar North are known for the immensely successful Grand Theft Auto series, which only took off after the third installment, released under the Rockstar North banner. Square and Enix, however, were both major name companies before the acquisition, so the additional clarification is quite unnecessary. - Vague | Rant 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


It's only necessary imo on series pages like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest where they were published under both titles, although this probably should be brought up at WP:SE to get a greater consensus. The only other time it could be argued would be those that were started before and published after the merger and maybe those with remakes.陣内Jinnai 14:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion has been transplanted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix#Square (now Square Enix)/Enix (now Square Enix) throughout wiki?. Please continue it there. - Vague | Rant 14:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

スクヱア would be a good name. ヱ isn't FULLY deleted from Japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.35.130.53 (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This conversation was moved elsewhere. And as far as I can tell, it has been resolved. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Square Enix Question

They made a game company for kids gaming and it suitable for kids. It is called Pure Dream. But they already have games suitable and can be played by children. The Dragon Quest and Kingdom Heart series are suitable for kids in Japan. All of the Dragon Quest and Kingdom Heart games are rated A all ages in Japan and that why they are suitable for kids. What up with this?169.244.49.193 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"Many of the top officials within Square Co. assumed the leadership roles in the new corporate hierarchy"

What's the significance of this line in the second paragraph? According to this article from IGN:

On the business side of things, current Enix chairman Yasuhiro Fukushima will serve as the chairman of the company with current Square president Wada Youchi assuming the new president role. Current Enix president Keiji Honda will be the vice president with Square's Hisashi Suzuki serving as a special director to the firm. The firm's main office will find itself in Enix's current main office in Tokyo's Shibuya ward. As a consequence of the stock swap involved in the merger, Enix shareholders will own 55% of the new company.

Both Enix and Square appeared to supply the same number of top officials to the new firm. There is no indication of why Square Co.'s top officials needed to be singled out in this line, unless I'm missing something. It could be easily changed to something like this:

As part of the merger, the former president of Square Co., Yoichi Wada, was appointed president of the new corporation, with the former president of Enix, Keiji Honda, serving as the vice president, etc.

Yottamol (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If I'm believed to be correct, the statement regarding the "Many of the top officials within Square Co. assumed the leadership roles in the new corporate hierarchy" line in the second paragraph might be original synthesis, and it should be removed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sony subsidary?

That characterization might be a little of a stretch. Sony currently holds 8.25 of their shares. http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/ir/stock/shareholder.html --98.216.229.69 (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Akihiko Matsui

Erm, why does Akihiko Matsui redirect here when there's no content on him on this page? --Zeno McDohl (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

shunya yamashita

Why does Shunya Yamashita redirect to this page. There is no mention of the artist on this page, or mention of his artwork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.64.54.130 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Yoichi Wada has resigned from Square Enix.

Hey wikipedia users, I just read the Internet news article that Yoichi Wada the president has resigned from the Square Enix Company. I thought you would like to know. There will be a new president for Square Enix. CrosswalkX (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

Not just the standard complaints about FF, but business shenanigans. For example, their business with Swedish company Grin: "During development, Square Enix did not pay Grin over several months, and disapproved of the game's Nordic art style. Grin worked to bring the game's art style closer to the Final Fantasy series, but after six months of development was told that no funding would ever come from Square Enix, and the developer filed for bankruptcy several days later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Extreme Edges

Square-Enix has been localizing western AAA titles to the Japanese market, under a company division named "Square-Enix: Extreme Edges". Presently this includes titles such as Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare, Diablo III and Thief. The Famitsu website hosts their official "Extreme Edges" blog, which is located here. Should the article cover a bit more on Square-Enix's role as a game localization company, in addition to a developer responsible for original games and IPs? --benlisquareT•C•E 11:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That should definitely be included. AFAIR, Square was also one of the driving forces behind game localisation in the early 2000s and there should be several articles and interviews with their staff on that.Xiomicronpi (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Business Divisions

So, apparently, Square Enix development divisions (the former Product Development Division structure) is now structured by what is referred to as Business Divisions. According to the ending credits, Final Fantasy Type-0 HD is from Business Division 2. Zidane4028 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

That is correct, there are 12 business divisions and they each work on multiple projects.Brayden96 (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

I'm guessing that the "Enix" portion is pronounced "EE-niks" but it might be nice to have in the article. Dismas|(talk) 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

How else would it be pronounced? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Square Enix/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Zppix (talk · contribs) 18:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Review Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Good article overall I think it could be split up a bit more but other than that I don't have a problem with it... This GA Nom has been accepted. The article is now on GA class and rating.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
Thanks for the review! This was a high value target and I'm glad it was ready to GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Individual reassessment

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Square Enix/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Reassessment by: BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

This article has some fundamental flaws that were overlooked by a novice reviewer, Zppix, who then refused to reconsider their passage. A number of these flaws were enumerated in the article's first GA review nearly two years ago; most of these were never fixed. There's also little material that goes up to the present day, and some from the mid-2000s that has not been followed up on. The article could use not only an update, but also a trim of material that may have seemed important ten years ago but has proven not to be germane. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Overall assessment

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article does not reach the standard of a Good Article, and needs significant work throughout to get there. More complete comments will be given below.

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    Prose does not meet the "clear and concise" guideline, notably in the Corporate history section, and there are some grammatical issues.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    There is one bare URL (FN2) and one external link (FN72), and a number of references that have only a linked title. These and other references need improvement; among other things, it's difficult to determine what might be a reliable or unreliable source without the source's name.
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    As noted in the GA1 review, there are significant unsourced sections, which may or may not be original research, but are not allowed at the GA level. The Subsidiaries section remains almost entirely unsourced, as are internal sections, including all of Arcade gaming, the first paragraph of Online gaming, and the latter halves of the second and third Other media paragraphs.
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    There is no predecessor company information in the Corporate history section, and no sense of how well the current company is doing overall.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Quite a bit of work needs to be done.


Individual sections

I'm going to start by noting issues with a few sections only. Once these are addressed, I will move on to others. Any issues remaining from the July 2014 GA review (Talk:Square Enix/GA1) will be noted.

Lead

  • The original Square Enix was formed as the result of a merger between Square and Enix. Please give the full name here for all three companies: Square Enix Co., Ltd., Square Co., Ltd., and Enix Corporation. After that, you can use the short versions, but the full name should be given at least once.
  • with Enix as the surviving company: the source is talking about the stock here, but on page 12 (FN9) it says "Neither of the two companies would be recognized as the acquiring company", so calling Enix the "surviving" company is a bit misleading.

Corporate history

  • This starts with the completion of the merger, but to meet GA's broadness criterion, it needs to start sooner, with a short history of Square, a short history of Enix, and a short history of the merger, which was apparently initially planned in 2000 but was sidetracked due to losses at Square. It is not enough to have "See also" links; give a very brief summary of each company. Also mention at least the primary game franchise(s) each had.
  • The GA1 review mentioned that the then-existing Corporate history section was a series of bullets without prose, and said that it should become prose, with the conversion elaborating if possible on how they relate to the company's overall status. I see no elaboration, and the section as it exists now is almost exclusively a series of bullet points in prose, which start "On [date], X happened". This makes for very boring reading, and there is no context: for example, the Taito acquisition was completed in 2005, yet there's a later sentence that mentions that all Taito games for "home consoles and portable systems are handled by Square Enix": why present tense (should be past), and why not back in 2005?
  • The Eidos and Smileworks are each handled in two disparate sentences, rather than in a connected fashion.
  • What happened with the suit Soft-World International brought against Square Enix? It's been nearly ten years; it should have been concluded or settled by now. It isn't enough to mention that there was legal action, it's important to note what happened with it, assuming it was notable. (If it wasn't notable or didn't affect the company, then maybe it should be deleted.)

Business model

  • The "polymorphic content" information is taken from a 2004 source. Is this still true over a decade later, or has it changed since then?
  • There's a tense problem in the second paragraph's fifth sentence, and it seems to have structural issues as well. Please revise.
  • The final sentence of that paragraph needs a source, and the final "at a reduced price" is displaced (it should probably go before or after "under the Ultimate hits label", but if after then further modifications will be necessary).
  • The final sentence of the last paragraph uses "has also begun", yet it's talking about 2007. This needs to be updated, as does whether Crystal Tools is still used (and whether it has been rebranded or updated). There seems to be some material along this line in the final Video games paragraph. It should be consolidated in a single place, though it can be referred to in another.

Development organization

  • The second paragraph strikes me as unimportant detail: we know virtually nothing about these particular divisions except that their leaders left, or they had a particular leader in a particular month. I'd advise deleting it entirely.
  • "At present" is apparently based on a 2011 source. Please update.
  • In the final sentence, I wouldn't call it a merger, since that sounds like a combining of corporations, not internal groups. I'd use a word like "combined" or something similar.

Properties

  • I'm not going to cover this in detail, but the sourcing of this section is irregular, with entire paragraphs and ends of paragraphs being unsourced. See the Online gaming opening and closing paragraphs and the Arcade gaming section as examples of places that need fixing

Subsidiaries

  • There should be some prose about this before the list begins.
  • Almost completely unsourced.
  • I don't think it's appropriate to give street addresses here

Reviews and rating

  • I'm wondering whether this section is needed.
  • Is this the only award Square Enix has ever won? I very much doubt it. Unless something more complete can be created, I'd suggest getting rid of this one mention.
  • Similarly, a BBB rating from the beginning of 2010 is not appropriate to mention. If you have a current rating, it might be, but I'm not sure this is appropriate—what does a Better Business Bureau rating even mean in the context of a games designer and manufacturer? Is this the national BBB? An international rating? If it's a local bureau, then it should be removed as non-notable.

References

  • I see one bare URL, one "[1]" external link, and a number that are only linked titles. The reference contents need to be improved.
  • As was noted in the GA1 review, the five bulleted links at the bottom of this section do not belong here: either they should be moved to External links (but be sure they meet the qualifications) or should be deleted. Some of them may no longer be germane.

Initial summation

Even in what I've covered, there is a daunting amount of work that needs to be done on this article, even more than was needed in 2014 when the article was failed immediately. I am allowing the standard seven days for work to be done. If significant progress is being made by then, I will naturally extend the time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Great review @BlueMoonset:! I have begun, it should be not a problem fixing this up to proper GA standards. :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Glad to see that you're already making significant progress. Once you've finished what's here, I'll continue the review: I didn't want to invest the time in an exhaustive review unless I saw an equivalent commitment to addressing the issues raised. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2016‎ (UTC)
Hey @BlueMoonset:, I am still working on the article. It needs that table of subsidiaries filled in and referenced, and the article copy edited, sourced and updated. Doable, just need a few more days. If you could take another look, any specific new fixes you see would be helpful. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777, please keep on going; you're making great progress. If you don't mind, I'd rather wait until you've finished all the work you're planning to do before I start a new assessment. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
That's fine @BlueMoonset:, I and @PresN: can probably finish our fixes without too much trouble; this article should yield some barnstars for quality review and fixing! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok! Time for another look @BlueMoonset:. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: just a friendly reminder, still interested to know what you think of the recent changes. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Second pass

I'm sorry it has taken so long to start—I have just gone through and done some copy editing in the article. Please check to be sure the changes do not affect the accuracy of the text. There are some places that I felt needed a bit more work than what I've done; they are listed below. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger

  • The first sentence needs work, not simply in terms of tense, but it also isn't as smooth and clear as it ought to be. It also isn't clear how far along the merger negotiations had progressed when the financial losses at Square put the potential deal on hold or scuttled it completely, and whether the later negotiations picked up from the previous ones or started afresh.

Business model

  • The use of eight inline citations at the end of the second sentence is excessive. I have no objection to eight sources, but they should be combined into a single citation. (If you don't know how to do this, I can demonstrate.)
Please demonstrate, I have no idea how to do this.
Judgesurreal777, I've just done so: it's now cite number 64. Please note that I have just guessed at what part of the previous sentence each entry refers to based on the title or url—this feature helps people know which source covers which item—and I would greatly appreciate you revising these as necessary. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The third sentence needs to be revised; the "as of" clause, combined with "ongoing", is confusing.

Game engines

  • The first paragraph's opening sentence says "does not usually use other companies' game engines", but the third paragraph's first sentence includes "uses and continues to consider other companies' engines and programming languages". I think these need to be revised so they are less contradictory; the former sets up an expectation that is not met in the latter.

Online gaming

  • First paragraph: using "got" seems not only informal but lacking info
  • In the second paragraph, the use of "unveiled" does not fit. In general, this paragraph seems to have too much detail: the first two sentences could be condensed (is the code name necessary? where and when it was announced?), and the Crystal Tools wikilink duplicates an earlier link. Also, was XIV actually released on that date? If so, just say it was.
  • The final two sentences of that paragraph could be combined, Crystal Tools and the MMORPG nature moved to the beginning before the game name (again, why is the announcement date important here?)
  • The end of the third paragraph is another place where the multiple cites could be combined into a single multi-source cite

Arcade

  • The use of "revealed" in the second sentence feels odd to me. Perhaps "introduced" (or maybe "announced", if the system wasn't released that year) would be more appropriate?
  • The final sentence does not work as is; please revise

Film

  • "two forays" doesn't seem to be accurate: in addition to 2001 and 2005, you have the Deus Ex and Final Fantasy XV movies and the newly released web series.
  • I'm not entirely sure that the merger delay should be reiterated here, since it was mentioned in the Merger section; if you do keep it here, please revise it a bit so the similar wording remains similar after the Merger section revisions
  • Is there anything more recent on Deus Ex than the 2014 rewrites?
  • once again, "revealed" is not the right description for such an announcement; can you give any more detail about the XV movie here? Not a lot, but is it live action, animated, in production or only in development, and maybe a bit more?

Merchandise

  • The six cites in a row at the end of the "Slime merchandise" sentence is again excessive. While the first two need to be kept separate, since they are used elsewhere, the final four are only used here and should be combined.

I believe that's everything, but I may notice a few more issues once you've made this new round of changes. I think we're very close to completing the reassessment. Thanks for your excellent work so far, and for your patience. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, quite the epic GA review/reassessment this is! I'll get to the new round of fixes as soon as I can @BlueMoonset:. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, this is probably going to take a bit more time, I have several other tasks going on a present I have to get to, a few GA reviews and fixes to do, so it may be a bit before I can get to all the corrections. It's nearly there! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Closure?

@BlueMoonset and Judgesurreal777: This GAR has been open for nearly 3 months now and the article has seen few changes made in the past month. Unless someone is willing to make improvements, I would suggest closing this GAR and demoting the article if it still doesn't meet GA standard. It can be renominated in the future. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The1337gamer, thanks for the reminder. I'm certainly willing to give Judgesurreal777 another couple of weeks, given how disgracefully long it took me to do the second pass, posted four weeks ago. Though you are right that it certainly shouldn't stay too much longer, and I'll try to keep a better eye on it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I have become very busy in life lately, so perhaps it would be better that it be renominated later, and this GAR closed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 14:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Judgesurreal777, if that is your preference, I'll close the GAR as delisted. Once you've been able to do the work on the article as above, by all means please renominate it at GAN. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

IO Interactive

The edit box is too small, and my last one was kinda wrong. Anyways: @Lordtobi and Iftekharahmed96: - as per the press release, and sources like [3], Square Enix is divesting itself from IO Interactive, as of March 31, 2017. That is, SE is no longer funding IO Interactive, nor retaining any assets through them. They retain ownership of the company, but it's no longer an active subsidiary, and unless someone buys them and gives them funding then it's finished. It's not an "ex-company" like I stated because no one's fired (yet), but unless they get money in order to pay people... and even if they do, as of March 31 they're no longer an SE developer. --PresN 15:01, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

If the case is as you described, the item should be retained in the table as a subsidiary (even if not active), but the description should be changed to adapt to current events. Lordtobi (✉) 15:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
The best option is to see the outcome of this currently ongoing event. If we see a report of IO Interactive getting subsidised into a new company, or the legal entity being dissolved, then we can remove the subsidiary. There's not much point in reverting and causing potential edit wars with a process that hasn't legally been completed yet. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Alright, sounds like we're in agreement- keep it in the current subs table, with a note that it's mid-process, and re-evaluate when more information comes out about it closing/being bought. Given that this is SE, there's a very high chance that if there's no buyer that they'll never actually say anything about it being closed (note that they apparently divested themselves 6 weeks ago, and are only now mentioning it), but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. --PresN 15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Square Enix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Square Enix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Square_Enix/Archive_1&oldid=1148678348"