Actually from what I understand, the Wii U version is exactly the same thing, so probably the graphics won't be changed up much
I think the NL article even said that they confirmed that you would be able to play continue your game on either version. For instance, if you start a file on the Wii version, and later see a sale on the WIi U version and buy it, you won't have to stat over, you just pick up from your save point on the Wii version.

I'm reading up a bit and if this is badly translated good, otherwise I'm thinking I'll pass on this game.

Supposedly the online element is very much needed as there's potential for gimping of an AI party vs real people, which you can work around some. The fat one is that in Japan there is a fee required to get the game online monthly to play it, and this looks like it could be used upon us too. I to my death will never pay a full blown retail price on a game for effectively a 30day 'trial' and then I have a drink coaster, replacement case, and art loaded toilet paper unless I pay their monthly blackmail rate of X dollars so my $50 game works. F-that, I'm out and done with the franchise if that is where they're taking it.

Nintendo's Publising it tho, XP

Only because Square Enix can't be bothered to. Nintendo doesn't own this game, in any sense of the word. This is Square Enix's, they're just using Nintendo's warehouses and trucks and marketing money.

Supposedly the online element is very much needed as there's potential for gimping of an AI party vs real people, which you can work around some. The fat one is that in Japan there is a fee required to get the game online monthly to play it, and this looks like it could be used upon us too. I to my death will never pay a full blown retail price on a game for effectively a 30day 'trial' and then I have a drink coaster, replacement case, and art loaded toilet paper unless I pay their monthly blackmail rate of X dollars so my $50 game works. F-that, I'm out and done with the franchise if that is where they're taking it.

Something a lot of people who don't play MMOs don't understand is that that monthly subscription is used by the game developer/ publisher to provide more, and better, content.

Guild Wars, for instance, is free to play. It's good, but it doesn't scratch the surface of that World of Warcraft provides.

The potential is there for Dragon Quest (already a 100+ hour RPG if you consider IX), to blow out into something absolutely massive with additional content being supported by subscriptions.

Remember, folks, you get what you pay for.

"It's not a MMO."

Sorry, it sounds like a MMO. I'm not too thrilled about it considering Level-5 isn't developing either. I know Square-Enix isn't the smartest company out there but it seems like they are setting themselves up for failure (again). As it stands now, Square-Enix can't do MMOs right and Nintendo can't do online right. A winning combination...

I'm hoping to be proven wrong but the whole situation seems doomed to failure.

How is Square Enix not a smart company? Oh right, that's your personal opinion masquading as a fact.

And your personal opinion is wrong. Square Enix is by far the smartest third party publisher in Japan right now. It's successfully diversified its business, it's successfully working with the western markets through publishers it bought, and then improved.

If you're talking about producing quality games as being "not smart," then you're categorically wrong, as well. Deus Ex? Dragon Quest IX? Final Fantasy XIII might be controversial, but many loved it? Nier, the underrated classic?

And Square Enix can do MMOs. Final Fantasy XI remains popular, even so many years later, and has maintained a subscription-based pay model. Very few MMOs have managed that when they've come up against WoW for so many years.

DQX may be the first time I actually am willing to pay monthly for.. Well, techincally second since my first mmo was Toontown online for $80 a year. I remember that game being so fun and the turn based combat was actually really good.

Anyhow, I hope this doesn't take a year to make it's way here.

And hopefully, DQXI will go back to it's roots. DQVIII was a really good game.

Ok, so explain Final Fantasy XIV. I heard that one wasn't so hot

lol FFXIV was just rushed and was simply a hot mess. Thus is why I'm hoping DQX doesn't suffer from that same fate

Yeah, that one was crap, there's no denying that.

I always find it amusing that when a publisher makes one good MMO (FFXI) and one bad MMO (FFXIV), people decide the glass is half empty and the company can't produce good MMOs.

Isn't Dragon Quest X going to have some sort of functiality between the Nintendo 3DS, Wii and Wii U via spot pass or something?

I think they hinted something like that

They made one awful MMO after making one good MMO. You think they are a smart company if they can take their lessons learned from a decent game like FFXI and then crap out something like FFXIV years later? Like you said: Level-5 made DQIX and Square-Enix didn't even publish the game in America, so thank Nintendo for that game's success outside of Japan (Nintendo actually advertised the game, something Square-Enix didn't do nearly as well for Nier). Deus Ex was only published by Square-Enix, it was made by Eidos Montreal. Nier was developed by Cavia. FFXIII was the FF that made many people think FF Versus XIII would be awful (if it ever comes out). As it goes now, Square-Enix is internally developing DQX. That doesn't raise a red flag? They publish good games, they haven't been in the business of making them for a long while it seems.

Let's get one thing straight, I think it's great that they are making this for the Wii U and I don't even mind that it's subscription based for that console. I question their intelligence because it doesn't seem like a smart thing to do to release DQX as a subscription based game on the Wii anywhere outside of Japan (if they do indeed bring it overseas). If the Wii version doesn't release outside of Japan, then that would seem like a smart move to me. But releasing a series that doesn't sell exceptionally well outside of Japan, on a console where half of the install base only uses the system online for Netflix, and when the superior version will probably be for the Wii U... that sounds like they are setting up for failure. Not having Level-5 develop the game is pretty dumb as well.

They made one awful MMO after making one good MMO. You think they are a smart company if they can take their lessons learned from a decent game like FFXI and then crap out something like FFXIV years later? Like you said: Level-5 made DQIX and Square-Enix didn't even publish the game in America, so thank Nintendo for that game's success outside of Japan (Nintendo actually advertised the game, something Square-Enix didn't do nearly as well for Nier). Deus Ex was only published by Square-Enix, it was made by Eidos Montreal. Nier was developed by Cavia. FFXIII was the FF that made many people think FF Versus XIII would be awful (if it ever comes out). As it goes now, Square-Enix is internally developing DQX. That doesn't raise a red flag? They publish good games, they haven't been in the business of making them for a long while it seems.

Because Square Enix is the only ones capable of making a bad game after a good one? Every single publisher and developer of a long-running series has had a dud game in there along the way. There are good FIFA games and bad FIFA games. There are good Mega Man games and bad Mega Man games. There are good Warriors games and bad Warriors games.

Making one bad game does not guarantee that the next one will be bad as well. That's an unthinking and unknowing assumption to make. The project lead on FFXIV lost his job. Dragon Quest X is being developed by an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT team. You've dismissed X on a factually incorrect series of assumptions, that it will be developed by the same people who made FFXIV, as well as a supposed poor history in MMOs that SE doesn't actually have.

As for the rest of what you wrote there, whether they developed it internally or not is completely irrelevent to the company's ownership of the game. Square Enix owns Deus Ex, just as much as Nintendo owns Xenoblade Chronicles. You can't credit Nintendo for that game and then deny Square Enix's role in Deus Ex.

A publisher, whether the game is developed internally or not, is still responsible for much of the final product. From making sure it's properly fianced, to quality control and then marketing, it's all Square Enix. Just like a producer is responsible for more than just the money behind a film. Now, it's possible that Square Enix's internal teams are not staffed with people of the same quality as those who made Deus Ex or the folks at Cavia (R.I.P). Games like Dissidia012 Duodecim, Tactics Ogre, the Kingdom Hearts series, and Final Fantasy XIII (which still has a huge fanbase) would disagree with that assumption.

So no. It doesn't raise a red flag. If you look at the situation objectively, there's nothing to suggest that Dragon Quest X will be a bad game. It's been happily in development for a while now, so it's properly resourced. It's Square Enix's most important franchise in Japan, so there's a huge vested interest in getting it right, and regardless of what you think about Final Fantasy XIV, Square Enix has a proven MMO hit in Final Fantasy XI. These are facts, not just guesswork, which is all you're supplying.

Let's get one thing straight, I think it's great that they are making this for the Wii U and I don't even mind that it's subscription based for that console. I question their intelligence because it doesn't seem like a smart thing to do to release DQX as a subscription based game on the Wii anywhere outside of Japan (if they do indeed bring it overseas). If the Wii version doesn't release outside of Japan, then that would seem like a smart move to me. But releasing a series that doesn't sell exceptionally well outside of Japan, on a console where half of the install base only uses the system online for Netflix, and when the superior version will probably be for the Wii U... that sounds like they are setting up for failure. Not having Level-5 develop the game is pretty dumb as well.

You seem to be assuming that Square Enix gives a s*** about Dragon Quest selling well outside of Japan. Nintendo likely agreed to publish Dragon Quest IX because Square Enix likely wasn't going to even bother. You're right. A subscription model MMO Dragon Quest might sell only 10 copies in the US. A failure, though? The billions of yen it will rake in on a yearly basis from Japan would suggest otherwise.

Americans always have this American-centric view of the world, that if something doesn't work in the US, then it's automatically a failure. Believe it or not but in Japan a lot of people spend a lot of money on games too.

That with MMOs is a myth. Those fees are pretty much pure profit. I've worked with people who came from Sony with Everquest and Blizzard with WoW. They said that nearly every dime of the monthly fee was sheer profit above and beyond what they make off the starter pack and additional packages that get sold along the ways. That's my beef. If the companies were honest, just charged like $5-10 for the little manual, box and the start-up disc then I could see dropping cash into it, but no when you charge the full price of a console/PC game and allow someone 30days unless they pay more that's just criminal.

You are right about GuildWars I've done it for like 4years or so off and on, but GW2 is built like WoW in how it is designed and will expand over time. The difference is they will NOT charge a monthly fee, but as they did with GW1 they will charge a full $50 for each addon package. Perhaps they don't have 1/2 the userbase of WoW, but they can effectively emulate that style of a world with this new game coming and not f'people over with a monthly scheme.

That with MMOs is a myth. Those fees are pretty much pure profit. I've worked with people who came from Sony with Everquest and Blizzard with WoW. They said that nearly every dime of the monthly fee was sheer profit above and beyond what they make off the starter pack and additional packages that get sold along the ways.

And that's a load of crap. I bet those people have nothing to do with the actual financial side of the business.

From server maintenance to providing additional content, to monitoring and policing the game, an MMO requires vastly more resources than any other online game (with the possible exception of some of the bigger FPSers). Is there business models that support free to play? Yes, there's freemium (Lord of the Ring Online), or there's free-and-not-as-much-content (Guild Wars). Good luck trying to do World of Warcraft that way though.

If the companies were honest, just charged like $5-10 for the little manual, box and the start-up disc then I could see dropping cash into it, but no when you charge the full price of a console/PC game and allow someone 30days unless they pay more that's just criminal.

Or you could just download it. FFXI is still going strong, and it costs $20 for the original game and all the expansions on Steam. Then you pay a subscription fee after that (though you get the first month free).

You are right about GuildWars I've done it for like 4years or so off and on, but GW2 is built like WoW in how it is designed and will expand over time. The difference is they will NOT charge a monthly fee, but as they did with GW1 they will charge a full $50 for each addon package. Perhaps they don't have 1/2 the userbase of WoW, but they can effectively emulate that style of a world with this new game coming and not f'people over with a monthly scheme.

Guild Wars had a tenth of the content of FFXI, and a hundredth of the content of World of Warcraft.

Look we're not going to agree. You seem to have your own opinion on how it's fine to pay into the system every month for your game to work and that's fine, be happy with it. Guild Wars 2 which you're ignoring they said is setup and on the scale of WoW and will not cost a monthly fee using the same funding model that GW1 did (packaged disc/downloads at full price) and I'm more inclined to believe their company than you. I'm well aware that the original GW is a lot smaller, it's also a COOpRPG, not a MMO even they've state that one so of course it's not the same model.

I personally don't believe in paying for subscriptions in any form. Others may be able to justify it, but I can't. The cost simply adds up way too much. If DQX requires a subscription in the West, I'm not getting it, simple as that. I also hate that it requires an online connection since my Router craps out sometimes, so that's already a big strike against it that means I'll only get it for a budget price. It doesn't need another strike.

Guild Wars 2 which you're ignoring they said is setup and on the scale of WoW and will not cost a monthly fee using the same funding model that GW1 did (packaged disc/downloads at full price) and I'm more inclined to believe their company than you.

You're more inclined to believe marketing than reality, that's your business. Doesn't stop you from being wrong. As someone who has spent at least 100 hours in both Guild Wars and Final Fantasy XI (and have plenty of friends who play WoW), I know for a fact which games have more content.

I personally don't believe in paying for subscriptions in any form. Others may be able to justify it, but I can't. The cost simply adds up way too much.

Let's crunch some numbers.

Let's say a MMO like WoW costs $40 for the game, and then $15/ month afterwards. But like most good premium MMOs, someone plays it for 500 hours over the course of the year. Total cost: $0.44 per hour. Pretty good deal, no?

Let's say someone else buys Super Mario Galaxy, and somehow gets 100 hours of play out of it for their $40 investment. $0.40 per hour.

An MMO is an investment, but it rewards appropriately. I'm not saying you have to buy it, but if you're looking for some kind of wisdom why Square Enix might do this, again, consider just how many people in Japan will buy this game and happily pay a monthly subscription for 500+ hours of Dragon Questing.

It's a smart move by Square Enix. Who cares if it even comes out west? We don't matter for that brand.

I hate subscriptions, too. I don't care how long an MMO may last. I have played hundreds of hours of Smash Bros. and only paid a one time price. You can pour hours into any good multiplayer game, and many good single-player games. If the cost for an MMO is necessary for the developer, fine for them but it doesn't increase the value for me. I would rather spend my money on multiple games for a variety of game experiences rather than paying a lot for one.

And while an MMO may have seemingly infinite replay value, valuing a game by money spent per time played is not realistic for me personally as it assumes every second I spend playing any game will equate to an equal measure of enjoyment. I enjoy a number of RPGs, but I won't consider each minute of grinding automatically equal to any minute of a good Mario game. That's not to say that Mario > RPG — I'll take Mother 3 over any Mario game — but grinding in RPGs can often be a chore performed only for the promise of later enjoyment when the game and story advances.

I do like Dragon Quest though, and I hope it comes out here with some way to play offline or online for free. My guess is Nintendo will localize the Wii U version to try to sell the system to those who consider their cores to be hard but won't bother with the Wii version as they seem to have given up on it.

Ok, let's try this another way.

If World of Warcraft developers are able to keep providing players with more new, fresh content 500 hours of gameplay and years into the games existence, and the people playing it continue to see value in it and be entertained by it, than that validates that subscription models can work, both for the developer/ publisher and player, doesn't it?

I'm not saying anyone has to like subscription models. I am saying that the theory that they're "no good/ don't provide value for money" is factually incorrect. Unless you consider your opinion superior to a few million people.