News Article

Dragon Quest X Requires Online Connection

Posted by James Newton

Subscription confirmed too

The revelation of Dragon Quest X for Wii and Wii U came with some uncertainty: will the game be fully playable offline, and will it require a subscription fee to play online? Now a Square Enix FAQ has answered the questions, with mixed results.

According to AndriaSang, the document claims that you'll need an Internet connection to get past the first few hours of the games, contradicting reports yesterday that you'll be able to finish the game offline with non-playable characters. Whether you need to party up with other online players or can finish it all solo is yet to be confirmed, but evidence points towards the former at the moment.

The other big revelation is that the game will require a subscription fee to play online. It's worth bearing in mind that Japanese users had to pay to play Monster Hunter 3 (~Tri) online too, but those fees were dropped when it came to the Western world.

Japanese magazine V Jump is promising more information on the game later this month. Here's a brief video from the press event yesterday:

Subscribe to Nintendo Life on YouTube


From the web

User Comments (88)



Aviator said:

"It's worth bearing in mind that Japanese users had to pay to play Monster Hunter 3 (~Tri) online too, but those fees were dropped when it came to the Western world."
It's worth bearing in mind that Japanese users paying for Monster Hunter = Lots and lots and lots of money.
Western, very little money.



Chunky_Droid said:

Wow, I didn't know much about this game, just figured it was another traditional entry in the series, now it seems like something I'm not all that interested in at all



Highwinter said:

I don't think the Monster Hunter comparison is relevant. MH isn't a big series outside of Japan and it's "online play" is no different from what you get with something like Diablo, there's no reason for it to have a subscription, besides the fact they can get away with it.

Dragon Quest has a much bigger audience over here, especially after IX, and since it actually is an MMO, the monthly subscription may actually exist for a reason.

That said, there's no chance in hell I'll be playing this over Guild Wars 2.



XCWarrior said:

This is all confirmed for Japan. Let's wait and see what they do for the US and UK if they bring it out at all.



fchinaski said:

This keeps getting worse every time a new info pops in. I never expected that I would say this regarding a DQ game, but DQX is starting to look as a no-go for me. My only hope is that they confirm that you can finish the game offline, otherwise... I think I'll just wait for DQXI, which is VERY dissapointing.



Kirk said:

The news and reveals about this game just get worse and worse.

First it was the fact that the graphics look barely PS2 level and it suffers from those damn circle shadows like so many other Wii games!

Now it's all this required Internet connection and subscription fee crap etc.



Wheels2050 said:

At least it might be a way for Nintendo to prove how serious they are about online with the Wii U - be interesting to see how it goes.



Bankai said:

They are going to make bucketloads of money from this in Japan. Smart move, Square Enix.



Samholy said:

im out.
i doubt it was a good idea to put dragonquest as an online frnachise. for me, its a single player experience. if i EVER get a wiiU, and if the game EVER get to be free to play except the retail price, then ill give it a try.

but my budget wants me to concentrate on one console at a time, so ill stick with my 3ds.



James said:

Here's a Reader's Digest of Nintendo Life comments:

Wii needs more online games! I'm sick of Nintendo neglecting online!

Square Enix announces Dragon Quest is coming to Wii with online play.

This is the worst news ever! It's ruined! Why can't this be single player?!

@Aviator Your comment is a huge generalisation. Nintendo/Capcom likely absorbed the subscription fee to grow the series, not because gamers in the West couldn't afford it.



pikku said:

Well, to be fair, I'd be all over this if there wasn't a subscription fee, but I don't know. I'll have to wait for more details on the pricing and specifics of gameplay before i make a decision, something we should all be doing. @James haha, exactly. you humans are so fickle. >.>



Adam said:

Games with online and games exclusively online are not the same. They lost my interest, too.



KaiserGX said:


But I have a feeling SE will charge in NA too... they still do for the Final Fantasy games...



JaxxRaxor said:

@ Highwinter

I don't know about Europe, my British friend, but in North America Dragon Quest has always been a minor series. Final Fantasy is the only JRPG series which is really big in North America. The sucess of Monster Hunter Tri means the MH and DQ series right now are at pariety in NA, although this wasn't true before because pre Tri MH had horrible sales outside of Japan.

I think its great this game has online, but I don't like the required online part of it. I doubt it would have a subscription fee if it was released overseas (which is very likely seeing as how DQ IX was), as DQ is not popular enough that many western players would be willing to pay it. Nearly all franchises that are popular in the West, including Western RPGs, have free online play so it would be a bad business model for Square and Nintendo to do this either for for the Wii or Wii U.



sykotek said:

Well, I'm out if subscription is confirmed for the US. I'm not about to change my almost decade old "Subscription fee? F*** YOU then Square Enix!" rule which I started for XI.

Edit: Just watched the video, game looks like S***, I'm out. That's not DQ, thanks for ruining it.



Hawker said:

well, this will be the only Dragon Quest game I will never play then, just like I never played Final Fantasy IX & will never play Final Fantasy XIV. Sorry but if I'm gonna pay $50-$60 for a game, I should be allowed to play it, & if I'm told to play a game I have to pay a mthly fee, then I shouldn't also be forced to pay $50-$60 for the game. I mean, what am I paying $50-$60 for a game if I can't play it?



BenAV said:

If there's no subscription fee I'll buy it for sure, and if there is then I'll pass.
I'm not prepared to play monthly fees for one individual game when I have many other good games I can be playing for free.



Spoony_Tech said:

Before I go all negative on this game ill wait and see if this game is of high enough quality to earn a subscription fee. If it does then ill know what ill be doing for about a year!!



TingLz said:

@James: My online never works and this is the reason I'm not getting Dragon Quest X. I thought it would have been better if online was optional, not required.



rockman0 said:

I'd love to get this game, but CoH and SWTOR are the two MMOs that have already taken my money (or will take my money). Not to mention, an MMO is a huge investment time-wise also.

I may get it at some point, but not right now.

@James lol. Your comment is so true.



JeanLuc_Vaycard said:

I will get this if there is no subscription fees, but if there are no thanks. (rinse and repeats a large portion of what users have already said here)



Pokefanmum82 said:

i'm going to wait until more information comes out before making my decision whether to buy this or not. So far this is just information for the Japanese release of the game. We don't even know if it's coming to the North America yet alone being charged in North America to play online. People need to calm down until they get more information.



SteveW said:

I'm no longer interested... when they take the servers down someday (and they will) the game will no longer be playable...



justinr said:

I'm not saying I'll be buying this (I'm NOT a fan of the DQ style artwork at all, it looks like crap), but I feel the need to play devil's advocate here: Everyone has been saying the Nintendo family of consoles suffers from few and poor online and online-multiplayer games, and needs more. Now, when someone wants to defray the costs associated with such a move by asking for a monthly fee from the Japanese (remember, nothing is confirmed for us western or european folks yet), you all get upset and say you're not interested? Make up your minds!



SteveW said:

I couldn't care less about playing games online. If this game requires online to play it then I am not interested because you will never own the game, it's more like a rental because you can only play as long as they want to make the server available. Try to play it in 5 years and see what happens... Imagine not being able to go back and play the classic NES and SNES RPG's because they relied on a server that is no longer around...



pixelman said:

Pass. I loved playing MH online, but I also loved being able to play alone and not have to pay to play a game that I paid for.



Graph said:

I'm not in support of online only games, and I never really cried about Nintendo not having online. I don't care for it personally. I'm a huge Dragon Quest fan though, and now, for the first time, this is the first DQ game I won't be buying just because it will be online only.

My problem with online games ... like those where you need to log in online to play (I'm looking at you Blizzard and StarCraft II single player) ... when those companies go down the drain, or close the servers, you won't be able to play the game anymore and you will have paid for nothing. To me, that's unacceptable. Online is a niche in my opinion. Sure, Nintendo should have it, but not if it means losing offline capabilities.

As for you @justinr, I think you are missing the point. You are putting everyone in the same boat. Not everyone cried about Nintendo's online. Just that those who are, are more vocal then those who don't care about it.



komicturtle said:

But this SE. They charge a subscription fee for their online FF games. MH is a different story.

This may be the first game I pay a subscription fee for. Maybe not. GW2, hurry up.



justinr said:

@Graph and others: You haven't "paid for nothing" when they shut off the servers years in the future and your disk/cartridge/download is rendered useless. Think of this from the point of view of the game developers:

They're in the business of creating consumable content, which you have consumed from the very first time you played it. This means that you pay for a product which has a limited lifespan and uses, as opposed to paying for a product designed to last a very long time (such as a house, or pick-axe, for example). So, every time you play that game, be it in 'play sessions', hours, whatever, you're lowering the original cost paid when you purchased that game/consumable product - PER USE.

For example, suppose you go out and buy a brand new game for $50. You head home, pop it in and play it for a while. That first time you play it, that session of play costs you $50. Then, you turn it off, go do your stuff, etc and the next day, you fire it up and play it some more. Now, you've played it twice, so that original $50 investment is broken down into $25 paid per play session. Each time you play, the cost per play session is reduced. A hundred sessions later, you're paying 50 cents per session.

All the developer/distributor is doing by tying the game to a subscription is making that downward curve more of a flat and stable line for themselves, until they decide to end-of-life that consumable product.

So, you haven't 'paid for nothing', if you're still playing that game 5 years later - which also is very highly unlikely. If you ARE still playing it when they EOL it, that means they've made a great game, and you've got your money's worth, and they haven't made a new product to replace it (which you'll inevitably complain about as well).



Graph said:

@justinr Yes, it's paying for nothing. When I buy a game disc, cart or whatever, I want to own it and be able to play indefinitely. You obviously don't know the value behind playing old games 20-25 years later.

When you start seeing play sessions in increments of money, you devalue de game. When I play my Super Mario Bros 3 cart that I paid for $100 back in the old days, I still see it as a $100 game today because it is that awesome. And I own it.

If I couldn't play it anymore, it would mean that my investment in this game is gone and that I now have a useless cart.

And yes, you have paid for nothing if you pay for a $60 game and it gets shut down years down the road. It's a loss in your investment. And like I said above, if you view your play sessions in money increments, then you devalue the game each time.

I still play games from the Atari, Nintendo era and still view each game for the price I paid them for back in the day. Online only games that you pay for and get shut down are a waste of money. Something I realized when I finally stopped playing World of Warcraft after 6 years. The money wasted on it for the sub and the item shop. I feel ashamed to have been caught up in it.

I don't like your way of thinking. You are basicly saying game companies should only do online games that will eventually die and can't be played ... well ... this is when I'll stop being a gamer.

And I don't like your quote here - "if you're still playing that game 5 years later - which also is very highly unlikely" -, it is in fact very likely. I have a wall of NES, SNES, N64, PS2, Gamecube games that I still play after all those years. It's more likely than you think. Your either naive or very young to be saying that.



justinr said:

@Graph: I merely pointed out the perspective of the game developers, which is generally accurate (go ask a game developer, if you don't believe that). Your perspective as a collector and a consumer is, quite obviously, different.

I also, as a consumer and player, don't see play sessions in terms of monetary value - I'm simply pointing out that this is what developers look at when they build and sell products, including games. Your attempt to force your point of view upon others (including the game developers) as a universal fact is both pointless and short-sighted. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying your opinion isn't shared by everyone, but ONLY BY LIKE-MINDED CONSUMERS.

Anyways, we can argue about this for the rest of our lives and get nowhere. So I bid you good day and good luck with your 'wasted' money.



Graph said:

@justinr I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone. If I were, I would get a gun and shoot people who disagreed with me. Don't put intentions on me where there is none. Stop insulting my intelligence with this kind of argument. Saying to someone that he's forcing his opinion on everyone is a sign you are no longer able to think of counter arguments and need to resort to insults and douchebagry.

I hate people who do that. You have your opinion, I have mine. No need to resort to stupid arguments like that.



TheIndigoEffect said:

Everyone seems to be disinterested by the online angle of DQX, but I'm actually pretty excited about the whole ordeal. Personally, I think traditional DQ titles are way too focused on monotonous grinding, but I think a co-op feature will make battles much more engaging.



Burn said:

I don't get it, people have been waiting for a solid online experience for the Wii for as long as I can remember. But when the single player mode is dropped, everybody jumps ship?

No point in arguing I guess, but it's going to be awfully lonely playing online with people who, actually, want to pay for the full experience.



AVahne said:

If it were B2P, then sure I'll buy and play it. But if we have to pay a subscription, then screw it. I don't like subscriptions, but if I had to pay a subscription for a game, it'd be TERA online. Also I'm hoping Blade and Soul will be B2P like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2....



ueI said:

It's looking increasingly unlikely that I will buy this game.



Maggots said:

Stop Whining... you know you're going to buy it on the Wii U ... I will...



chiefeagle02 said:

It'd be great if the first week or so of online play was free. This way, those who only need the first few hours of online time won't be alienated from completing and enjoying the game. Also, it'll give us a chance to see if subscription play is really worth the extra cash (you never know folks...). And lastly, the great influx of early gamers online will let Square Enix test and fix any server problems in a real world setting.



armoredghor said:

@Sykotek yeah. that's not really square enix show off the brand new game in their series in front of an audience developed the same lead as the first one. Games are constantly changing to keep up with modern trends. They also change the series for the good of it. you nor anyone else on this forum knows the brain of the developer so none of us can say what dragon quest nor any franchise that we have not developed is supposed to be like.



kevohki said:

It's ironic that I was defending Square-Enix a couple months ago on another site by saying something along the lines of, "We can still trust Square-Enix to do the right thing with Dragon Quest. The company isn't dumb enough to run Dragon Quest into the ground or turn it into a MMO like they did with Final Fantasy." I stand corrected.



Hardy83 said:

LOL people think a small fee a month (it won't be 15/month, you're deluding yourself with nerd rage) will run DQX into the ground.



Burn said:

^ Agreed ^
Monster Hunter 3 in Japan is $8 monthly, $20 for three months.



ueI said:

$20 for three months turns into $80 a year. I don't think any game is worth that much.



Burn said:


There are plenty of people that would disagree with you, including myself. However, the problem with MMOs is when you're paying a subscription fee, you feel less inclined to play other games. I've found myself saying "I'm paying for this right now wether I play it or not, so I better be playing it". Then again, some MMOs are so much fun, the price is completely justified.



X-145 said:

Uh, ya no. This sucks. I'll get it if there's no fee. I am pissed beyond words at this news. Square-Enix, tell me when you com out with a REAL new Dragon Quest numbered game.



sykotek said:

@armoredghor: I just call it like I see it. After I saw the video provided... THAT game looks like ABSOLUTE TRASH in my opinion.

I'm not buying it regardless of whether there is a subscription fee attached to it or not.

Sure it's their intellectual property and they can do as they choose, but does it fit with what I understand to be Dragon Quest, especially part of the main series? Hell no.

Does it seem to me, a person who has had every DQ iteration released in the states, a person who has drove a hundred of miles to join other DQIX gamers at meet up events, and a long time purchaser of the franchise, like it's a change for the better. Hell No.

Will I try to stop you from spending your money on it if it gets released here. HELL NO. Go ahead, you can burn your money for all I care, but our opinions are just as valid as yours...and as a dedicated fan up to this point, I'd wager much more valuable than your "well, if you didn't make it, shut up" post.



CanisWolfred said:

Oh you Square-Enix, how did you know I wanted another reason to not buy your game? You shouldn't have!



J-Forest-Esq said:

Blast. This is terrible news, and all I wanted was a nice single-player RPG for my Wii. Too bad I hate wholly online games especially if it comes with a subscription fee.



Raylax said:

From most wanted to least wanted in two easy new posts. I'd honestly rather buy Ninjabread Man than a subscription MMO.



WolfRamHeart said:

@Jango-Forest: You want a nice single player RPG for your Wii? Don't you guys have Xenoblade, The Last Story and Pandora's Tower? I sure wish I had those games.



FonistofCruxis said:

@Jango-forest If you want a good single-player rpg for the wii, get Xenoblade chronicles!!! I haven't got that far but I can already see why people have been calling it the rpg of the generation! Also, The last story and Pandora's tower are out next year.



Gavin_Rozee said:

I've personally never been a big fan of online gameplay, especially when you have to pay.

I'll gladly buy this if there are no subscriptions involved.



motang said:

As long as I can finish it 100% w/o having to pay a fee (other than buying the game) is ok with me if I need to log on to the PlayOnline server (which I am sure that is what they will use).



NES_64 said:

Having played Final Fantasy XI from 2004 to 2010, I cant see SE not doing a free subscription for the western market. FFXI is still making money for them after 9 years, and we all know SE love money. DQX will do fine dispite the negitive responses, as long as they've learnt from their mistakes and dont release the game incomplete like ffxiv and spend the next year still sorting out all the problems.



Maggots said:

A game can require online for play and still be completed off line... why is everyone freaking out... why don't you wait 1 freaking week to see what they announce at TGS...



WolfRamHeart said:

I think that this game will not have a subscription fee outside of Japan. I can see why they are doing it in Japan considering how large the fanbase for Dragon Quest is, it will be an instant money maker. Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter are huge in Japan but that is still not the case here in the US. If they try to implement a subscription fee for this game outside of Japan there is a good chance that the game will have trouble selling especially considering the negative feedback that this game is already getting. I still plan on getting it myself and I think that this game serves a good indicator that Nintendo is finally taking serious steps at improving it's online service.



y2josh said:

I'm done paying monthly fees for online games. Make it free online and I'll buy it.



J-Forest-Esq said:

@58, 59 Ah yes, well, I've already got that actually...but Dragon Quest X was revealed aeons before Xenoblade so it comes as a bit of a blow to find it's not what was expected. Maybe I'm just greedy but I would still like a proper console DQ.



HandheldGuru97 said:

Well if the Wii U's internet is anything like the 3DS's than I'm fine however I can't connect to Nintendo Wi-FI on the Wii or DS ( I can get on the shops though). Still Square-Enix stop taking your oldest and best franchises go on online!!!!!!



Widdowson91 said:

The online features isn't what's bothering me here. What's bothering me is the possibility of a pay-to-play online structure. I've always loved the look of World of Warcraft and would love to play it, but I totally disagree with paying a monthly fee to play a game online when I've already forked out money to buy the game in the first place, so I've never played it. Am I gutted? In the sense that I've not played a game I want to play then yes. But I'd rather spend my money on new games then on paying to play the same game constantly. But I personally feel the west won't get these charges, I mean the Wii's internet connections are garbage so who'd pay for that? Also Momster Hunter Tri and a few other games all have montly fees in Japan while been free in the west.

As a game I'm intrigued in Dragon Quest X and will surely play it if it's free online. But if there's charges then I'll pass and wait for Dragon Quest XI. People view DLC and pay-to-play games as the future, but I sure as hell hope I don't see a day when every game has a charge to play it on top of the initial purchase price.



komicturtle said:

Well, I'm willing to pay a monthly fee for an online DQ game over WoW.

As long as the game is stable and has no issues plaguing it. I can't wait to play this game. I hope DQXI goes back to the standard DQ fare- maybe a small online mode that sort of replicates the local play of DQIX.



CanisWolfred said:

As long as the game is stable and has no issues plaguing it.

You do understand that this is a Wii game you're talking about? Issues and instability are pretty much guaranteed. Though we may luck out with the Wii U version, they may as well cancel the Wii version.

A game can require online for play and still be completed off line... why is everyone freaking out...

Because pretty much all MMOs aren't very fun alone.



dimi said:

If the gameplay is better and more fun than world of warcraft (something extremely dificult) then i would pay montlhy fees for new Dragon Quest.



Gamer83 said:

Congrats Square-Enix you have now officially made yourselves completely irrelevant.



DashDG said:

I have my MMOs fees for my PC games... First Final Fantasy and now DQ, Square Enix you're not Blizzard!!!!!! Fail!!! =(



Noire said:

I know all the hardcore Dragon Quest fans probably hate this because that damn newfangled internet thing wasn't around when I played Japanese role-playing games, but I like the idea. Hours of endless grinding for experience and money would be seventeen times more enjoyable with actual people instead of those generic PCs you build in Dragon Quest IX.

But I know I should just shut up because I don't understand Dragon Quest and it's supposed to play like it's older than sin.



SwerdMurd said:

No one else is excited? I'm actually pretty pumped...I was hoping IX would be online but this totally works. I'll be getting the regular ol' Wii version, assuming it doesn't get all FF XIV crucified reviews/impressions-side. Normally I'll give any game a shot, but those scared me away from even considering it.

I'm on board. Haven't been steered wrong with a DQ game yet.



Bankai said:

@81 yeah I am, but Nintendo fans clearly don't understand how MMOs work, or why subscription is a good thing. So, whatever.



tanookisuit said:

All I know is when it comes out here for WiiU, a much as I've enjoyed the series since #1 I will drop it cold if it's a more online centric game with a weaker solo play setup that makes you struggle much harder forcing the move. I can't support that, but outright if paying to play the game is required they couldn't pay me enough to buy it. I'll never pay into the pay full price for a disc and 30days play and then pay blackmail fees every 30days to keep it going hence I have a coaster, space case, and artsy butt wipes.



Sakura_Moonlight2421 said:

;_; My internet connection sucks too much for me to play this one!! Until my situation with internet improves I can't get this.



SwerdMurd said:

there's a part of me that's kinda surprised by this...DQ has always migrated to the console that's the best selling/will sell the most copies. Given the numbers, it makes sense for them to bring a traditional DQ game to the Wii. If it's online-centered though, the decision is more confusing. Wouldn't more PS3-owners (who virtually all have reliable internet connections/more interest in this game type, I'd assume) be interested in this type of DQ game, regardless of the size of the console's install base? I dunno....after reading all these comments, it seems like a weird choice to bring it to Wii...



Bankai said:

Swerd - if you consider that the DQ games are largely built for the Japanese audience, then online connectivity is pretty much assumed, regardless of whether you own a PS3, Wii, or no console at all.



Retrogamer88 said:

i am going to wait and see until it comes out before i start complaining (this generation of gamers pass time, and not mine thank god) about a game thats not even out yet,i hope this game gets some sweet expansions and some extra races to play as, and looks worthy of keeping an eye on,i hope SE doesnt screw this up like the final fantasy games being made today,though FF zero for PSP looks good so far



Marakuto said:

Oh yeah thats good for some and some people who are new to Nintendo DS & 3DS consoles will struggle to know that it requires Wi-Fi.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...