"Closed" Xbox Live blocked FFXIV

By Robert Purchese Published 24 June, 2010

Tanaka and MS couldn't agree.

Final Fantasy XIV Online creator and director Hiromichi Tanaka has told Eurogamer that a "closed" Xbox Live blocked the game from appearing on Xbox 360.

"The main reason why we couldn't go with Xbox 360 was the Xbox Live system," he explained at E3. "[Live is] different to the normal internet environment, so when we wanted to introduce this game in the same environment as Windows PC it had to be PS3, so that was our choice.

"Microsoft has a different point of view: they want to have a closed environment for Xbox Live. We're still talking to... We couldn't come to an agreement on Xbox Live."

Square Enix number-one Yoichi Wada told GamesIndustry.biz a similar story; he said what he'd like to see "first and foremost" was a network structure that allowed third parties to "freely design different business schemes".

Final Fantasy XIV won't be the first MMO snagged by the closed nature of a console's online service . Cryptic chucked in the towel on an Xbox 360 version of Champions Online earlier this year. Producer Craig Zinkievich told Eurogamer he was frustrated with the business side of getting an MMO on Xbox Live; the game itself, he said, ran just fine.

Ironically, Final Fantasy XI remains one of the only MMOs to be offered on Xbox 360.

Final Fantasy XIV Online is in development for PC and PS3.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (68) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • mkreku #1 2 years ago

    I wonder what it is Microsoft is demanding that's stopping all these MMO's?

  • peteb #2 2 years ago

    Probably for them to be free for Gold Subs or something

  • McBradders #3 2 years ago

    Subscriptions on top of subscriptions... madness.

  • twh104 #4 2 years ago

    If the PC version was GFW Live, couldn't they play online? Like Shadowrun?

  • sfp_noodle #5 2 years ago

    I guess this ends rumors of a 360 version. I find it odd really. FF13 did well on 360 so I'm suprised MS are being as stubborn as they are.

  • BAM! #6 2 years ago

    Well played MS. I'm so glad that your policies are protecting us from having more games and nice things liike iPlayer.

  • Dizzy #7 2 years ago

    Look what happens when it is not a closed system (like EA on Live).

    "Ooooohhh sorry... we just shut down the servers of game XXXX"

  • WinstonChurchill #8 2 years ago

    @peteb

    Probably the opposite is true. Based on the rejection of iPlayer and existing FFXI model, I think Microsoft want MMOs to only be available for Gold memberships. Clearly, to reach a bigger audience, Square-Enix want it to be open to all (as with PC and PSN), including Silver members. Can't imagine Microsoft would allow Square to make money when they wouldn't.

  • sneetch #9 2 years ago

    More than likely Microsoft wanted a share of the monthly subscriptions because the closed nature of Live means that Microsoft would be the ones who'd have to host any patches and possibly even the servers.

    Also they probably would have required that the game be only for Gold members (they can't allow Silver members access as it would undermine the perceived value of the Gold membership).

  • androidave #10 2 years ago

    I think the problem lies with xbox live being 'closed', locked away from the real internet.. and I would have thought that any cross platform mmo would want to have xbox / ps3 / pc all talking to eachother, players on any system able to interact with eachother and also log in on any platform they choose.. which I'm guessing isn't possible on xbox live..

  • NewbieZilla #11 2 years ago

    shopp219 disgusts me.

  • gott_sei_dank #12 2 years ago

    How hard would it be just to use Xbox Live as an authentication server, I'm guessing not hard so it is anal control freaky or greed that is the problem.

  • Acrid #13 2 years ago

    Can't we all just get along?

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #14 2 years ago

    I guess we can expect Tanaka to show up at the next MS trade show conference and announce that FFXIV will be coming to Xbox live after all, and that the Xbox version will represent "the best console experience" for playing it, then?

  • Markitron #15 2 years ago

    This highlights one of Sonys biggest mistakes in the first few years of PS3; with a dedicated MMO division in SOE, no base online subscription and a hard drive in every SKU there should have been some MMO preloaded onto all PS3s. Cant believe its taken this long

  • Bill Gates is Evil #16 2 years ago

    The most confusing part about all this, is how the hell is the Final Fantasy XI workable on Xbox Live but Final Fantasy XIV is not.

    Microsoft has been fucking up a lot lately.

  • Entity #17 2 years ago

    It's a shame they couldn't come to an agreement. Either way, I'm going to be playing this whenever it decides to rear its head.

    MS could've done with a fresh MMO, but their loss.

  • Skooch #18 2 years ago

    The closed system is to protect the users. Allowing 3rd party access is opening a can of worms.

  • metallicorphan #19 2 years ago

    seems that the biggest fanboy here is obviously Microsoft for stopping us playing with Playstation 3 players

    when in FF11 we 360 players played with PS2 and PC players and it was great

    grow up MS

  • CaptainQuint #20 2 years ago

    If I want to play a life-sucking MMO I'll get a pc. I'm with MS on this one - don't over-complicate the subscription model; keep it simple, it's good for business.

  • ignatiusjreilly #21 2 years ago

    it's good for business.

    Good for business, but not good for players (seeing and they miss out on this game and others). Unless you own MS shares I can't understand why you would stand on that side.
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/10 @ 17:56

  • Geordiemp #22 2 years ago

    MS just wont budge on their gold subs. There seems to be a move to MMO and even steam on PS3.

    MS going after the wii market. Strange Strange.

  • YoungPayters #23 2 years ago

    MS will always stick to this closed subscription service. unless blizzard comes along and says they want to make WOW for the console. a turn around from MS then will be inevitable haha

  • CaptainQuint #24 2 years ago

    Let's face it: MS and its Live service are doing fine without MMO's, which actually appeal to an entirely different market to the demographic MS continue to target - the core and the casual. MMO games are the fair of career gamers and MS have every right to decide whether or not they think it's beneficial to cater for them. Clearly at this point they do not.

  • Krakn3Dfx #25 2 years ago

    This is exactly why the 360 isn't getting Steamworks support in Portal 2 as well, not to mention a bunch of little perks that the PS3 gets like Youtube support in Just Cause 2. MS's desire to maintain a closed system on the 360 isn't anything new, they've been doing the same thing with their PC operating system for years.

  • CaptainQuint #26 2 years ago

    Indeed. And we all know how Stevie Jobs feels about the "closed" topic.

    Consumers have every right to moan; but at the end of the day they're all just their master's bitches.

  • sarcasmoidosis #27 2 years ago

    But won't Steamworks support on the PS3 force them to react?

    Valve will most likely offer free DLC for Portal 2 for both PC and PS3. DLC which will cost something, the bare minimum for Xbox. I think if this goes on they'll have to cave.

  • CaptainQuint #28 2 years ago

    Of course. It would be foolish to suggest that MS perhaps don't "play it by ear".

  • Geordiemp #29 2 years ago

    Interesting to see in a year or so with a couple of MMOs on PS3 and steamworks with exclusive VLAVE stuff on PS3, and MS going for Skittles 2.

  • uzivatel #30 2 years ago

    What exactly changed since FFXI?

  • Krakn3Dfx #31 2 years ago

    MS has ignored the free online MP and Netflix streaming options on the PS3 for a long time, something like Steamworks doesn't strike me as a card that will force them to ante up.

  • yagisencho #32 2 years ago

    Given how soul-crushingly dull FFXI was, this isn't exactly a disappointment. But then, I also have a PC and a PS3.

  • Sniper_007 #33 2 years ago

    MMOs are not conducive to a successful console... from MS's perspective, as this would take away too many users from buying any other games! Their business is to sell software, if everyone plays just one game and MS don't get a share of this then what's in it for them?

    It's disappointing but unfortunately understandable.... let's hope it does massive business on the PS3 and forces MS to change stance

  • CaptainQuint #34 2 years ago

    As is always the case with these inflammatory news stories - the further down the comments page one gets, the more intelligent the discussion becomes.

  • efebayor #35 2 years ago

    Maybe this was the thing Gabe Newell had bene referring to when praising the PlayStation's openness.

  • Gradius #36 2 years ago

    @Von_Adder

    "Thanks to MS and their utter bullshit mmo policy i caved and bought a new pc, have hardly touched the 360 now since discovering the delights of LOTRO....so i would just like to end this by saying fuck you MS"

    Was it a PC running Windows you got by any chance? I'm sure MS feel like sooo fucked... Anyway, surely most ppl into this genre of game will be after the PC version, no? Besides, does anyone even have any interest in the FF franchise after the last few abysmal titles? I don't think I'll lose any sleep over this decision tbh..

  • androidave #37 2 years ago

    ff xi.. that was back when the 360 was first released, what's changed is ms aren't so desperate to win over new core players now.. there's no technical reason why ff xiv can't be on the 360.. its just that ms seems to think there big enough now not to bother making exceptions to there closed system rulebook.

  • Centrifugal #38 2 years ago

    I honestly wouldn't buy this anyway. MMOs aren't my thing. I'm a lot more disappointed that Final Fantasy Versus XIII isn't coming to the Xbox.

  • Raiten #39 2 years ago

    @CaptainQuint, i find it hilarius that you mention how MS aims for core and casual gamers as the main reason why there's no need for such things as MMO's on 360.. funnily enough, vast majority of those mmo players you labeled as "career gamers" are the demographic MS is aiming for, aka core and casual gamers.

  • Sunyavadin #40 2 years ago

    Screw it, who wants MMOs on consoles? Consoles are for games I only pay once for and forget about.

    For MMOS, I have a PC.

    You don't see Blizzard whining about WoW not being doable on 360, do you?

  • Gradius #41 2 years ago

    @Von_Adder

    It's not irrelevant, buying another MS product is hardly saying "fuck you" to MS, is it? Oh and "denying people that right"? So, it's now your "right" to play FFXIV on the 360, is it?...

  • Pasco #42 2 years ago

    Closed systems have their advantages and disadvantages.
    + Users have a uniform experience
    - Developers can't do whatever they want and sometimes it means cutting features (or games)

    If the disadvantages outweigh the advantages for a specific game, just buy it on a more open platform and stop complaining. It's not like you don't have a choice.

  • Grayvern #43 2 years ago

    Microsoft would like windows and windows gaming to be more closed than it is but if someone wants to release a game on windows microsoft can't stop them.

    As long as games for windows live has almost zero traction this will remain the case and its a good thing.
    Edited by 1 at 24/06/10 @ 21:20

  • dudefella #44 2 years ago

    Microsoft really needs to loosen their XBOX Live policies. They have a vice grip on that shit and it's preventing us from getting games because they want a chunk of everything even if they have literally zero part in the distributing or running of it. It all has to go through their infrastructure.

  • riceNpea #45 2 years ago

    it's MY ball and you can't play with it!

  • unhappymatt1 #46 2 years ago

    So, It seems that Microsoft wants full control of their transactions. I don't blame them. They provide a service and a excellent one at that. I'm happy with that. If I want those things other than what they provide I'll go elsewhere.I'm content with what I have.

  • Moribundman #47 2 years ago

    Don't like Final Fantasy, love Xbox but hate this fucking shitty MS attitude re live. Look - you won't lose business by letting silver members do certain things they are already paying for. BBC iPlayer and MMOs should be allowed for all Xbox players if they are already paying a subscription fee.Just because MS don't get a sniff of that profit shouldn't stop them playing ball. People aren't going to go out and buy an xbox solely to play ONE MMO or watch BBC programmes. People pay for Gold because they want to play games on reliable hosted servers and have cross party chats with their mates. Period. Now grow the fuck up Microsoft and stop acting like petulent adolescents.

  • VandelayIndustries #48 2 years ago

    The joy of owning multiple platforms....


    Cheers :D

  • Shakey_Jake33 #49 2 years ago

    As others have noted, it has nothing to do with gold/silver membership. It's because SquareEnix want to be in charge of the servers, and have them cross-platform. Sony allow this, Microsoft do not. They made the exception with FFXI to get SquareEnix on board, but aren't prepared to do the same thing again.

    Microsoft's approach has advantages, but it is clearly contrary to what works for MMOs. This is also what keeps Blizzard off of the platform.

  • metalangel #50 2 years ago

    I really wanted to go and stab 20 dire chocobos for the xp too! :(

  • Geordiemp #51 2 years ago

    Games are getting like MMO's anyway in small steps.

    Look at Mass effect 2, great game, you had Kusami, the merc guy, the cerebus DLC, and now overlord, quite a bit of DLC. Difference is MS is in charge of pricing.

  • Corben_Dallas #52 2 years ago

    Tranasalation.....
    MShaft wont give them the monies, they has all the monies from XBOX gold subs and theys not giving any of those monies to nobodies.

    MMO or No
    ]:)
    Edited by 2 at 25/06/10 @ 09:51

  • Eraser #53 2 years ago

    I'm not sure this is about money. I mean, assuming that MS' net result of having FFXIV on XBox 360 is nil, then isn't just having a title like FFXIV on your platform in itself not reason enough to go ahead with it?

  • Cronan #54 2 years ago

    FFXIII was a dreadful exposition-filled CGI film with a dreary linear JRPG in between. When fans of a game try to justify it by saying "it gets good after 20 hours" with a straight face, it makes me want to go out and kill puppies.

    I'm glad XIV won't be clogging up my Xbox.

  • Cronan #55 2 years ago

    I love threads like this, makes it so easy to identify the FF dullards and Sony fanbois and add them to my twit list. Nice.

  • actionfitz #56 2 years ago

    They were probably after subs to be paid for through MS with Live Points - of which MS would take a cut.
    Also for gold accounts only im guessing.

  • actionfitz #57 2 years ago

    Either way... I have a PS3 as well, so im not bothered :p

  • pinochet_cz #58 2 years ago

    Don't care about jap weirdo games, but MS have to do clarify their policy.

  • Gastrian #59 2 years ago

    So two pages of comments and almost all of it bullshit, typical.

    Who here can tell me the exact reason why this deal broke down? Exactly what was not being agreed on and why? Were Microsoft making unfair requests of SquareEnix or were SquareEnix making unfair requests of Microsoft?

    Things work both ways, maybe SquareEnix wanted to implement Gold features for Silver users? Maybe SqaureEnix wanted access to the Xbox firmware to make patches but didn't want to go through MS quality control procedures? Maybe the way SquareEnix wrote the code would leave Xbox Live vulnerable to hacking? Maybe there's mircotransactions and SqaureEnix refused to use MS Points and MS couldn't accommodate cash transactions?

    Unless you were in the meetings and read all the minutes don't just assume it was MS's issue as we have seen them flex to allow non-paid DLC through the Cerebus network and allow other companies to use their own servers like EA.

  • Marshall2008 #60 2 years ago

    Seriously tho, who gives a fuck. The only mmo that is any good is WoW. No one is going to play an mmo on a console, just wait for DC universe to prove that out. Mind you Sony On-Line (Shit Outta Luck) seem to hold onto mmo ip's LOOOONG after their expiry date.
    Edited by 1 at 26/06/10 @ 01:34

  • Raiten #61 2 years ago

    @Gastrian, if you want reasons as to why there's a few, but all of it which is assumptions nothing more nothing less.
    First would be the subscription differences on live, naturaly company like squenix would want as many people to play their MMO thus they'd want to have silver accounts also be able to have acces to the game.. that alone allready goes against MS policies even with the exception of the previous FF mmo.

    Secondly, it's likely microsoft would want a part a part of the subscription money, which in case doesn't realy work out for people providing & running mmorpgs, hence it'd allready provide a blockage for a possible deal.
    Tbh we could come up with reasons as to why they're so reluctant to allow mmorpgs on 360 all day long, but without any official confirmation from anyones side, it's only guessing as to why.

  • gnrlstuart #62 2 years ago

    i know this might sound silly to some of you. but I may just write a personal letter to the man who pulls the strings with xbox live, because lately i've come to realise that xbox live is so impersonal, from the overpriced, deliberately broken microsoft points system (prepaid cards with totally random amounts of points, no ability to purchase a desired amount, and no debit card support! ) an overpriced, under featured xbox live, consisting of a dictatorship marketplace where pointless and rubbish mainstream feature's which we dont want are being forced on us( bare bones facebook? twitter? cmon were GAMERS for friggs sake. gamers dont spend all day on facebook talking about squat raves in shoreditch and playing farmville, WERE DORKS! we want to gun down attackers in rush, and teabag the enemy through killcam in hardcore s&d!) when we want community features similar to mlg, game rankings, tournaments, clans,keyboard and mouse support, high quality voice chat,special offers for games with fast food, and special offfers for fast food with games! bbc iplayer,4od, internet browsing, which is being caught up with by psn faster each day. down the cheesy, fake and forced acting in thier recent E3 press conference. i frankly. have had enough :).

  • Phredreeke #63 2 years ago

    What's the point of cross-game invites anyway? If you want to play the game you have to put in the disc in anyway. It's more of a nuisance (getting invites for a game I don't even have) than a feature if you ask me.

  • Raiten #64 2 years ago

    @Tigerstyle, normaly i wouldn't comment on such meaningles panters but you sure like making a big deal about features every second person using 360 doesn't care about.
    This is by no means defense for psn or trashing live, but saying psn is miles behind by just missing a few features people either use or don't bother with is just overblowing things.
    I've never used cross-game invite on 360, i've never accepted invite either while playing a different game than my friends, i don't use cross-game chat at all either, just because i prefer to chat with people i'm playing with when i'm playing something online.

    Saying these are important features just isn't true, if every 360 user would use these and saw them as mandatory feature to have, your statements might sound correct, but as it is all the silver account holders and those gold account users who've no use for such feature, beg to differ with your overblown opinnions.

  • Gradius #65 2 years ago

    Why are people arguing over PSN vs Live? Surely, it's widely accepted that Live is the better service. PSN is great because it's free but Live is quite obviously (to anyone who uses both consoles online) the superior service by quite a stretch.... Which is expected as it costs.

    Or is this just some fanboy retard argument in which facts play no part?....Ah, I see, I'll just go then.

  • Phredreeke #66 2 years ago

    I'm not a Sony fan boy, I own both systems. I mixed up the cross-game voice chat (which as you say is free) with the party chat (which they do charge for)

    That doesn't change what I said about some people being happy with a basic free online service over a more polished premium one.

  • Gradius #67 2 years ago

    To be fair, I don't think anyone would dispute that having a free online service is a nice thing, and yes, many people would choose "free" over "quality" but that's not really the debate unless I've missed something. I thought the dispute arose over whether Live was the superior service or not.

  • FuzzyDuck #68 2 years ago

    @tigerstyle

    Did you catch your significant other in bed with the PSN or something? Relax!

    Live is clearly a better service than the PSN, but they are what they are - a qulatity service that you pay for vs. a shoddier service for sure; but the PSN is somethin' for nothin', which is enough for some people.

    PSN is far from shit- i can get a stable, competitive game of whatever i fancy with minimal fuss (yeah the updates can spoil the fun occasionally , so i just make a cuppa). It tops most free services i've ever used.