Talk:Square (video game company)

Square VS Square Co., Ltd.
Do you feel we should mention games produced by Square Co., Ltd. before they were an independent company? As pointed out in my King's Knight article, King's Knight was not, in fact, the first game that Square developed. It WAS the first they developed as Square Co., Ltd. However, they produced and/or published no less than six games simply as "Square": The Death Trap, Will, Thexder, Dragon Slayer, Cruise Chaser Blassty, and Alpha, respectively. Thexder was developed by Game Arts and published by Square for the Famicom, and Dragon Slayer was produced by Falcom but published by Square for the MSX, while the rest were produced and published by Square. Most of these games were released on various Japanese computers (notably the NEC PC-8801 and PC-8901) and never saw light outside of Japan. I have the release months and years if you guys are interested in placing this on the site.

EDIT: I also notice that massive gaps of games are missing in any given platform. There is some debate as to why they shouldn't be included, since this is an English version of Wikipedia, and these games (i.e. 'Square's Tom Sawyer' for Famicom) were never ported to English-speaking countries. On the other hand, Final Fantasy III never saw an English release, but is still listed. One could argue that Final Fantasy III is more relevant since it's part of Square's flagship series and, furthermore, it has had an (albeit unofficial) English translation. These arguments don't hold much water, however.

Finally, I'm wondering if I'm the only one that cares to advance this discussion and/or edit the site. :/ Somebody prove me wrong. - Tristam 12:49 a.m., 24 Jul 2005 (CST)


 * Though it's been more than a year since you've brought it up, I just came across this now and I very much agree. From what little data I have, the company known as "Square" was originally a label of software company Denyūsha; this division seemed to have been managed by Hironobu Sakaguchi's brother. The split from Denyūsha took place around the same time as Nasir Gebelli, Takashi Tokita and Akitoshi Kawazu were hired on staff. (One of the first games that Tokita worked on, it seems, was Aliens: Alien 2, an MSX platformer loosely based on the Ridley Scott film.) This critical mass of new talent seemed to cause enough of an upheaval for Hironobu Sakaguchi to ask for an amicable split from his parent company (and a shift in focus to the Famicom).


 * That's as far as I've gotten in research of this stage of history, anyway. There is a Japanese site called ROAD OF SQUARE that I've been pointed to in the past, which most likely contains data pertaining to this era and the people involved; due to my backlog, though, I haven't been able to get around to feeding it through the translator. X\


 * I really would like to see Denyūsha-era Square outlined in this article. Many Americans who do know about it seem to gloss over the fact that there was a history going further back, not realizing that it helped set the stage for the direction the Sakaguchi brothers took their own splinter faction (which was a drastic shift in focus to goals more artistic rather than commercial). The context would further help with present-day context in explaining Hironobu Sakaguchi's own reasoning for founding Mistwalker and AQ Interactive.


 * Highly recommended that this line of questioning be pursued, thanks. --E. Megas 17:24, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Squaresoft" was never the name of the company to begin with, it's only a brand name they (used to) employ. The Japanese company name was Square Co., Ltd. although it did have a US subsidiary called Square Soft, Inc. Of course, it's all Square Enix now.

Square VS Squaresoft
That's what I thought too, can anybody confirm this for sure? If it's true, then I think we should move Squaresoft content to Square (Videogame company) or something like that and add a redirect from Squaresoft. --xDCDx 13:38, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure about that idea. I don't think I consider Square's history to be the same thing as Square Enix's. Is Chrono Trigger a Square-Enix game? Merging the articles would suggest that it is, when clearly it is a Square game. - Vague Rant 07:04, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Of course not, someboy altered my coment, I have restored it. My proposal was renaming the article to Square (Videogame company), which was the actual name of the company before the merger. --xDCDx 20:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Squaresoft as a brand name
I'm not exactly willing to stake my life on this, but it was my understanding that the name "Squaresoft" was only used as a brand by Square during the 16-bit era: while my imported copy of Live A Live, for instance, bears the Squaresoft name, my imported copy of Final Fantasy VII does not. American localizations continued to use the "Squaresoft" name because it was still the name of the American branch, not because the parent corporation was still actively using it as a brand name. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, though. – Seancdaug 17:57, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have any imported games. However, I've found a couple of sites   that show cover scans with "Squaresoft" everywhere - US, Japan, and Europe.  This Japanese flash animation from the official site, dating from just before the Enix merger, also says "Squaresoft," so it seems pretty settled to me.  And yes, I have little enough of a life to go searching for this stuff. :P Beinsane 22:22, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, well. I stand humbly corrected, then. :-) – Seancdaug 22:35, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Merger
I think the merger with Enix should be somehow given in the first paragraph, currently the lead in sounds like the company doesn't exist anymore at all. I think a simple "It merged with Enix in ... and became part of Square Enix." should be enough. The article should also tell the reader at the beginning, why this company is relevant, currently it launches straight in the history of the company, which, imho, should be under a History heading below the ToC. --84.184.105.203 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good suggestion, and I'm currently creating a massive "History" section. It may not be done for a little while though. :) --Tristam 16:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll put it in the intro paragraph! —Wikibarista 04:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

square/squaresoft logo font?
i've been trying to find this font for years (the italic futura-looking one with the red triangle A). is it an actual font of which square licensed a modification, or is it a custom font commissioned exclusively for square? -alex rosario —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.27 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Game Designers Studio
It is a three sentence blurb that can be covered in this article without its own whole article, and makes this article more comprehensive. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you sure there's not enough information available to make the article stands on its own? Akitoshi Kawazu did a lot of interviews about the FF Crystal Chronicles series; some stuff that aren't directly relevant to that series could go in the Game Designers Studio article instead. I think the reason the article is so small is because people simply don't care much about the "meta-game" topics in general. It could also be because there's not much to say to begin with, but are we sure of it? Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've merged the article. There doesn't seem to be much information and it can be added in this main article anyway. Kariteh (talk) 11:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Square Co. → — Naming conventions (companies): "When disambiguation is needed, the legal status, an appended "(company)", or other suffix can be used to disambiguate". "Square Co." is not a commonly used name and it gives off the wrong vibe that "Co." is the legal status, when in fact it is "Co., Ltd.". Either move to "Square (company)" or "Square Co., Ltd.". Prime Blue (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with Square (company), but I think "Square Co., Ltd." is excessive. The current disambiguation is sufficient.  Powers T 00:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What happened to the Family Friendly Squaresoft (1983-1996)?
Hello there as you know I've grew up with Squaresofts Nintendo games in the 1980s and 1990s. When the America Squaresoft brought games from Japan around 1987. They made it available and made NES and SNES games aimed at families and kids. Of course this was in the days of video game censorship. Anyways they make Final Fantasy 1 for NES. Squaresoft also made Final Fantasy 4, Mystic quest and 6. They also made The Secret of Mana, Chrono Trigger, Breath of Fire 1, Secret of Evermore and Super Mario RPG. They didn't have any swearing, there was a little violence in the NES and SNES games. But those Nintendo RPGs had a great story.

Then in 1997 the America Squaresoft team left Nintendo and Partnered with the Playstation company and made Playstation RPG games aimed at Teens and Adults. They made the very first teen swearing, real violent Final Fantasy 7 game. They continued on with putting swearing and violence in Final Fantasy 8, 9, 10 and Tactics. And also made other Teen RPG playstation 1 games. Then they made a Final Fantasy movie which didn't do too well at the box office.

Then Squaresoft merged with Enix and they still continue to making Teen swearing and violent RPG games.

Anyways this is only my thoughts about my feelings toward Squaresoft when it made wonderful RPG games to bad teen RPG games. Due to neutral point of view of wikipedia I cannot post it in the wikipedia page as it is not mine. I just wanted people to know there used to be a time when Squaresoft made clean family friendly RPG games in the NES, SNES Nintendo era. I hope this article is ok to be in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrosswalkX (talk • contribs) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "family friendly" stuff was mostly due to Nintendo of America's censorship. In the Japanese versions of some of their games, there were mild curses, some sprites showed a lot more bare skin, Pubs were Bars, some of the drinks were explicitly referred to as alcoholic beverages, there was some religious iconagraphy, and various other things that Nintendo of America didn't want on their system.  What you've seen post-SNES from Square is just the exact same style of games they made in Japan, just without any NoA censorship.  That's how their games have always been.  You just never got to see them in their original, unfiltered form until the PlayStation years. Zeikcied (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Name Origins
Is there an interview or other external material that explains the origins of the company's name: Square? (Which I find amusing considering the company logo clearly contains a triangle.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.231.159.204 (talk) 07:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Newly translated interview
The History of Square – 1992 Developer Interview originally featured in Dengeki SFC magazine TarkusAB talk 12:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Square (company) → Square (video game company) – This current title seems like WP:INCOMPLETEDAB because of Square, Inc. The common name for that Square is also "Square" - their logo, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and website all use it undisambiguated. Seems hard to argue that Square (company) could not easily point to both pages here. (For what it's worth, the Square, Inc. page is viewed much more than Square (company), so I have to imagine there could be some WP:ASTONISH at play.) Nohomersryan (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, both seem indeed to be just "Square" also Square, Inc. gets 24,387 views compared to 6,770 for the video company.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support makes sense per nom. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 23 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Discussion has failed to establish Square (Enix) as the primary topic for companies named "Square". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 23:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Square (video game company) → Square (company) – Square, Inc. has been moved to Block, Inc., making the less concise disambiguation unnecessary, as there is no other article that is a company called "Square". The article can be moved back to its former name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Moving the other article doesn't make the ambiguity go away. WP:DEFUNCT names for notable topics continue to have notability. Wikipedia covers all of history, not just what is current at the moment. No evidence has been provided to justify this WP:INCOMPLETEDAB proposal, and I seriously doubt that such evidence exists. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not saying there is no more ambiguity anymore, but a hatnote can solve the ambiguity. Square(soft) will be the primary topic now, however, since it is a totally defunct name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A defunct status or an official renaming does not automatically reduce the notability of a name. Do we have any evidence that the overwhelming majority of readers who look for "Square (company)" are looking for the video game company? Do we have any evidence that the video game company has much greater long-term significance than the financial services company? Such justifications seem absent here; only the current status of the naming has been presented as the rationale, but current status has absolutely nothing to do with whether something is a primary topic or not. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not mention current status at all. Moreover, WP:partial disambiguation is only used in exceptionally dominant cases on Wikipedia, such as . This case does not have any argument for exceptional dominance. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that Square (payment system) also currently exists even though the company its self has changed name[|Block,_Inc.|Square_(payment_system)].  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Payment system and company are not competing disambiguations. In this case, the payment system is not a company since it is run by Block, Inc., it is a brand of a larger company. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Parenthetical disambiguators in article titles need only distinguish between existing non-redirect articles. The rest is accomplished using hatnotes and redirects as appropriate. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That interpretation is not supported by Disambiguation. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 06:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? There is no other company named Square by itself and anyone who arrives at Square (company) looking for Block Inc. will find a hatnote directing them there. Can you point to a passage at Disambiguation that contradicts or discourages this usage? Axem Titanium (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Because Disambiguation says that disambiguation may be needed for an article title "because it refers to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia, either as the main topic of an article, or as a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic". Note that it says "subject", not just "identical current article title", and that includes consideration of "a subtopic covered by an article in addition to the article's main topic", which could be a former name, a key person who works for a company, etc. It also says not to relegate a topic to a hatnote unless there is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when considering both current use and long-term significance. And in this case there is no primary topic. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 14:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

*Oppose, as the company might change its name back again, there may be other entities appearing that use Square, and there isn't really a problem with the current title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2022 (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.
 * Write for the present, not for potential futures. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, that is pretty much all that needs to be said here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The old Square (what is now named Block) is far more notable than Square the video game company pre-merging with Enix, under the name "Square". Just because the name has been "cleared" due to the move doesn't mean that it is appropriate to act like the former Square (what Block is now) never existed for purposes of both readers searching on Square and for existing content that may use "Square (company)" for a redirect. --M asem (t) 21:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this not addressed by a simple hatnote on this page directing readers to Block Inc.? I've never heard of a previous name being so powerful that it blocks others off of it preemptively. If Block Inc is so unbelievably well known as Square, then maybe you're actually suggesting that Block should be moved back to Square as the COMMONNAME? Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Square-the-payments-company was quite notable, and the Square payment platform is still prominently around.  I love classic Square-the-Japanese-company's games, but even if we grant that they are equally as notable (which may be a stretch), that still means there's ambiguity.  SnowFire (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The payment platform is not at all in danger of confusion since it has a completely different article title (payment system). What's wrong with a hatnote? Axem Titanium (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:PARTIALDAB generally expects that the partially disambiguated article be much more notable than the competition. That standard isn't met here - a recent rename of the payments company to Block isn't enough to stop its notability under that name, which is how it was known when it was a unicorn in all the business & VC rags.  Just as Square becoming Square Enix didn't squelch all the notability the company had acquired under the name "Square".  SnowFire (talk) 16:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof and others. The existence of the previous name for the financial company would absolutely make this an WP:INCDAB, and it does not meet the high bar required for that. Colin M (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose I think there's still enough ambiguity especially given their payment system is still "Square".  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 22:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Completed copyedit with Guild of Copy Editors
I have completed the copyedit requested by at WP:GOCE. The article was generally well-written, though I happened to come across some sourcing issues while copyediting, some of which I have tagged in the article. I would advise this page's major contributor(s) to double-check the sourcing, as there were some statements that did not match what the source was saying, such as this diff about the reason for hiring more staff. I may be missing some information that is presented in the Japanese-language sources though, so do let me know if that is the case. Otherwise, the article is pretty well written and was fun to go through. Feel free to post here if there are any other questions! Yee no  (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Publishing
Due to recent edits between myself and in regards to the overseas subsidiaries/studios of Square, I'd like a wider discussion on how much detail to include. And how many sources are needed. Pinging to help with this. ProtoDrake (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Also pinging. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * With all thoughts, this is a great idea. That means we can see what other users think are better for the page or something along those lines, and it can solve the problems that we're having. Luigitehplumber (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to weigh in. Can I have a bit more context though? What was the status quo, what's the proposed changes, etc. Or am I misunderstanding the situation? Sergecross73   msg me  00:42, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The current situation is what's on the page now in the section "Overseas publishing". It was like this (me trying to cover stuff while being concise), but (personal opinion here) LPT's additions are causing the thing to become bloated and creep back towards to its pre-expansion state. I'd previously been doing tidying up and condensing, but with the latest edits (which reverted some prose condensing I'd done), I wanted more voices in on this before it turned into anything resembling an edit war. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , do you think there is enough material to make a Square subsidiary article or list, or not??? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , sorry I forgot to ping you on this. I've counted fourteen (Osaka studio; The NA, Hawaii? and EU branches; both EA-Square collabs; the five subsidiaries like SquareNext and Square Pictures; Digicube; DreamFactory; and Escape of Driving Emotion Type-S 'fame'.) Could be more if we count Aques and Disc Original Group, but they were more labels/collabs than actual subsidiaries. Is that enough for a list? If it were, it might solve the bloat problem (and hopefully the uncited statements, overlong verbiage and bare url problems as well). --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Basically, you can split a list when it either meets WP:NLIST or it's just so big that it can't fit in the main article any more. 14 isn't so big- it's a bit lengthy, but I don't really think it's undue (Square had a lot of initiatives and sub-companies over the years!), and I have a hard time believing that there are sources that talk about "Square subsidiaries" as a coherent concept out there, though I'm open to being wrong. -- Pres N  22:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I personally don't believe a list is the right course. What I'd prefer is for the section to be...concise prose. I admit some subsidiaries I missed, but I started this conversation as recent additions were starting to bloat an already-big article again. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I've done an edit to the page. Working from an older revision, I added in information, trimmed down bloat, and rearranged the section as a whole to better reflect things. All the subsidiaries are now in one place. I also addressed a couple of information mistakes I made regarding Square USA. It may still look rather choppy, but I was trying to go by subject and detail rather than chronologically. PLus the subsidiaries are...a mess. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve had a read about it, and I think this has certainly improved the page with a lot less bloat. Luigitehplumber (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I do have another problem now, as some of the deals were done after the merger, but would there be any place for them on the Square Enix page? Luigitehplumber (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I was attempting going by what the sources say, and trying to keep it general (for instance, saying they partnered with x companies is what the sources support, I didn't find any statements about them "[not going] for specific distribution partnerships and [preferring] to negotiate deals). For subsidiaries, I wanted to describe those formed formed in the Square period and continued operating either up to or a little way past the merger. I admit the Atari bit comes post-merger for Unlimited Saga. If the publishing bits explicitly post-merger are cut, will that be fine? --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and then that will solve the problems, at least for now.
 * on the topic of Sony Europe, they did publish the original Kingdom Hearts and one of the Final Fantasy PS1 compilations, but I can’t find any sources for them for now, and maybe it’s for the best to avoid further clutter. Luigitehplumber (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)