Talk:Square Enix/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).
 * 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
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)

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 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? User Rosen  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. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  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)

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&#39; (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. 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? -- benlisquare T•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)

IO Interactive
The edit box is too small, and my last one was kinda wrong. Anyways: - as per the press release, and sources like, 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. -- Pres N  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  ( &#9993; ) 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. -- Pres N  15:54, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://kotaku.com/5045705/square-enix-takes-no-for-an-answer-withdraws-takeover-offer
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dol.dengeki.com/data/news/2003/9/26/7eebeedd61ad754327406658d0626da4.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.4gamer.net/games/120/G012012/20110118006/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.4gamer.net/games/120/G012012/20110118006/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://gangan.square-enix.co.jp/hagaren/novels/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hd.square-enix.com/eng/group/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rpgfan.com/soundtracks/ff13-single/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-final-fantasy-xiii-face-off
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://pc.ign.com/objects/101/101561.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/webonly/rpg/knightsofthecrystals/tech_info.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://content.usatoday.com/life/books/booksdatabase/default.aspx?sortBy=&lastValue=90&date=10%2F20%2F2005
 * Added tag to http://na.square-enix.com/news?no_redir=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904203157/http://www.slimeshrine.net/plush/Plushies.html to http://www.slimeshrine.net/plush/Plushies.html

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160616202526/http://www.1up.com/news/square-ipod-game-music-fight to http://www.1up.com/news/square-ipod-game-music-fight

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

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