This surely came as some kind of big surprise. I had to check several rpg news pages until I finally believed this, you know, Square and Enix will merge. Whoa!

http://www.rpgamer.com/news/Q4-2002/112502c.html
Just a little bit of a link, I am sure it won�t be hard to find more articles on this topic...

So... any thoughts?
Maaan, now I won�t be able to make my favourite Enix-pun ever again. (It�s German, sadly, I cannot tell it here...)
Waahhh...

Hmmm... I'm not too sure what to make of this quite yet. As most people know I'm a huge Dragon Warrior (quest) fan, and which the extra support and leverage Square has we may see more of those games... However, world wide I think the Final Fantasy series (though inferior to the DW series) is much more well known, so it may have an impact on how many new DW games we see.

I suppose the best we can do is wait and see.

Though, on a side note I think this was probably the smartest move the companies could have made, for the most part anyway. The Only problem I see is that now Enix is linked to Sony in a large part because of the buy out (or practical buy out) of Square not too long ago. I'm not sure if there are any stipulations that the Enix faction of the new company remains its own enterprise, apart from the stocks held by Sony, or not, but if its not then I would say Sony has just monopolized the world of RPG�s.

Rabid Monkey...You seem to forget about the partnership Nintendo and Square created with their Tactics Advance game and Final Fantasy Chronicles...


And also, let's not forget the partnership between Square and Electronic Arts...


As for my personal opinion...I couldn't get more delighted...


Either way, the future of both companies is garanteed...and so are the franchises ( Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy come to mind at first, but what about Seiken Densetsu, Star Ocean, and many others ? ).


And if they do make a cross-over ...


Well, "Dragon Fantasy Profile of Mana" sounds good enough for me...I mean , Mario RPG and Kingdom Hearts both are great games, so why not ? lol

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
Rabid Monkey...You seem to forget about the partnership Nintendo and Square created with their Tactics Advance game and Final Fantasy Chronicles...


And also, let's not forget the partnership between Square and Electronic Arts...

Actually, I didn't. Those games were released BEFORE Sony bought out more than 50% of Square though the purchase of stock. Not that it matters, because now that Sony owns most of Square anything that is good for Square is good for Sony.

Basically, because Sony owns so much of Square there is literally no way Square can make a decision without Sony approving of it. My point was that, depending on the fine print of the merger, Square could either become much more its own company, because it would, in theory, reduce the control of Sony to about 25% if Square and Enix went in as equal partners, or it could make it so that Sony controls two companies.

However, either way Sony still profits from the merger because it means that the two biggest names in RPG's will be producing and selling games with Sony receiving kick backs from every copy of every game with the "Square", "Enix", or "Enix Square" logo sold after today (November 26th) due to the fact that they own so much stock in what is currently Square and soon to be Enix Square.

That is assuming that Square and Enix don't do away with their current stock and start from scratch, which I can't see them possibly doing because it would mean having to pay off all of the current shareholders.

So, I hope that makes my point a little clearer...

I think I like it.. I think o.o Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy merging and such. Two Rpg gods as one what wrong can come out of that? o_O Not much right?
Look first ofcourse, then decide but oh well.. .looking forward to it :E

*lol*
Right... if I remember correctly, once when Square and Enix teamed up to make a game, the result was Chrono Trigger (had the... dragon Quest producer or something? not sure...)
So there�s something positive.
BUT really, it will be odd to see the new logo on the games... and all... ;_;

My Thoughts:

"why is it called "Enix square"? it should be called "Square Enix"!!!!!

@Misao :

As far as I know, Chrono Trigger's staff only had ONE staff member from Dragon Quest... why it was none other than Akira Toriyama :p


Indeed, Akira Toriyama is the official character designer for the Dragon Quest series...


@Rabid Monkey :


Sony didn't own most of Square's share stock...it is merely a minor shareholder ( not even 20%, if I'm not mistaken ) ...Sony never had any real control on Square.


@Vivi :

It actually IS called Square Enix Inc. :p Or at least that's the way it's going to be called ...for now.

Finalily, the greatest rpg making companies merge as one. This is going to be interesting since Dragon Warrior(Quest) and Final Fantasy are my favorite RPG series. With their knowledge, I bet the two companies will create cool projects together.

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
@Rabid Monkey :


Sony didn't own most of Square's share stock...it is merely a minor shareholder ( not even 20%, if I'm not mistaken ) ...Sony never had any real control on Square.

I believe it was more than that, however, Sony is no "mere" shareholder. Sony is the second largest shareholder. Who is the largest? Why none other than the founder of Square.

The way Sony has control over Square is the same way shareholders of other companies have control over their respective businesses. As a share holder you are entitled to sit on a board that directs what direction the company takes, the more shares you own the more leverage you have. If Sony is in the runner up seat in the "most stocks" owned race, second only to the founder, then it is safe to assume they have a good amount of leverage.

Originally posted by Rabid Monkey
As a share holder you are entitled to sit on a board that directs what direction the company takes, the more shares you own the more leverage you have. If Sony is in the runner up seat in the "most stocks" owned race, second only to the founder, then it is safe to assume they have a good amount of leverage.

*Slaps forehead*


Wow...Why the hell have I been studying in Law, and especially had those two courses in Business Law, and "never" knew that ??? Thanks for the info , Rabid :p


No, seriously...It really does NOT matter whether Sony is the second share holder or not...it doesn't even matter who the first share holder is...as long as you're NOT having 50% plus one of the voting shares !!! And this, let me tell you, does NOT mean fifty percent plus one of all the actions...You could have 99% of the actions, and had NO control whatsoever. If those 99% are priviligiated actions that do not vote and only have rights over the profits...then you can't do anything about the company...There ARE exceptions where you CAN vote on some matters when owning these kind of shares, but fusing companies are NOT one of those exceptions :p


In short, the ONLY shareholder who has control on the company is the one owning the majority of voting shares...All the others ARE nothing but mere shareholders :p Even if they are a hundred share holders but own only 49.9% of shares...as long as the one shareholder owning 50.1% votes against them...IT IS JUST TOO BAD.


So, unless said founder of Square ( Is it really Sakaguchi ? I'm not really sure...Not that it really matters in this case...but anyway...If Rabid or someone else can answer this one, thanks in advance ! ) doesn't have 50% plus one of the voting shares, then MAYBE Sony CAN have some control...but ONLY by joining its votes with someone else's which will allow them to have a majority.


But, really...I wouldn't bet on that...:p The founder of Square probably has the majority of voting shares...Therefore, ONLY HE has the power...The others, in my book and probably a lot of other lawyers' book too, ARE...NOTHING...MORE...THAN...MERE...SHAREHOLDERS :p

Thank you. lol

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
*Slaps forehead*


Wow...Why the hell have I been studying in Law, and especially had those two courses in Business Law, and "never" knew that ??? Thanks for the info , Rabid :p


No, seriously...It really does NOT matter whether Sony is the second share holder or not...it doesn't even matter who the first share holder is...as long as you're NOT having 50% plus one of the voting shares !!! And this, let me tell you, does NOT mean fifty percent plus one of all the actions...You could have 99% of the actions, and had NO control whatsoever. If those 99% are priviligiated actions that do not vote and only have rights over the profits...then you can't do anything about the company...There ARE exceptions where you CAN vote on some matters when owning these kind of shares, but fusing companies are NOT one of those exceptions :p


In short, the ONLY shareholder who has control on the company is the one owning the majority of voting shares...All the others ARE nothing but mere shareholders :p Even if they are a hundred share holders but own only 49.9% of shares...as long as the one shareholder owning 50.1% votes against them...IT IS JUST TOO BAD.


So, unless said founder of Square ( Is it really Sakaguchi ? I'm not really sure...Not that it really matters in this case...but anyway...If Rabid or someone else can answer this one, thanks in advance ! ) doesn't have 50% plus one of the voting shares, then MAYBE Sony CAN have some control...but ONLY by joining its votes with someone else's which will allow them to have a majority.


But, really...I wouldn't bet on that...:p The founder of Square probably has the majority of voting shares...Therefore, ONLY HE has the power...The others, in my book and probably a lot of other lawyers' book too, ARE...NOTHING...MORE...THAN...MERE...SHAREHOLDERS :p

Thank you. lol

K, then one question, explain to me why all the major RPG news sites and magazines that I had visited or read went ape shit (no pun intended) saying the same exact thing I just said after Sony had bought the stock in Square? I tried finding an article that I had read on it but most of the sites either have them locked away in a member section that you have to pay to get into *shakes fist in anger at GameSpot* or have such a messy archive/horrible way of searching to find that one article you want that it would take hours on end just to find the single story you're looking for.

Ah...but that's an easy one, Rabid...


Because RPG news sites and magazines are just that...RPG-specialized. They don't know the full meaning of being a shareholder...at least not all the legal stuff that's behind it. It's not their fault, mind you. I'm no mechanic, for example, therefore I can't really know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars lol


Mind you, I never said those were absolutely wrong, and neither are you. But the fact remains that because Sony doesn't own the majority of voting shares of Square, you can't say it has any "real" power on the company...They only have a voice of speech, and as I already explained, if the ones who have the majority are speaking against Sony, that is just too bad for them...


I hope that explained it. ;)

Originally posted by Evad D'Aragon
Ah...but that's an easy one, Rabid...


Because RPG news sites and magazines are just that...RPG-specialized. They don't know the full meaning of being a shareholder...at least not all the legal stuff that's behind it. It's not their fault, mind you. I'm no mechanic, for example, therefore I can't really know what I'm talking about when it comes to cars lol


Mind you, I never said those were absolutely wrong, and neither are you. But the fact remains that because Sony doesn't own the majority of voting shares of Square, you can't say it has any "real" power on the company...They only have a voice of speech, and as I already explained, if the ones who have the majority are speaking against Sony, that is just too bad for them...


I hope that explained it. ;)

Well, I understood what you were saying before, I just didn't understand why news sites would have made such a big deal about the event, and said what they had, if it wasn't true. So, I hope that clears up my point of view on the topic, not that I think you don't understand, just wanted to make sure you did.

I think I remember hearing something about this last year, and that Namco were involved in the project as well, but I don't know what became of that.

Originally posted by Vivi
My Thoughts:

"why is it called "Enix square"? it should be called "Square Enix"!!!!!

because in Japan where the real gaming action is, Enix fucking kills Square.

Yeah, Sqenix sucks. I'm sorry, but their games make the "square" part look horrable. I mean... look at these games then look at the squareSOFT games... Squaresoft RULED!! This is like Sephiroth killing Aries... just with companies... I hate Enix. Although Star Ocean 2 was good... Enix sucked all together

You brought up a 2 year old topic?






















...ICK.

Originally posted by Magus
Yeah, Sqenix sucks. I'm sorry, but their games make the "square" part look horrable. I mean... look at these games then look at the squareSOFT games... Squaresoft RULED!! This is like Sephiroth killing Aries... just with companies... I hate Enix. Although Star Ocean 2 was good... Enix sucked all together

I think people who revive dead threads suck.

Gah, indeed.
Never ever do this again. >_<