Welp, the Xbox version is dead in the water. What were they thinking?

Disappointing news.
I hope Sony doesn't start demanding PS+ for 14 after this. >_>

I was waiting to see if this would happen, not surprised they elected to leave out this piece of information from the Official announcement we got a while ago.

As they both knew, SE and Microsoft, that this won't be popular.

In my country Xbox game pass Core is $12.95 NZD and Final Fantasy XIV's Entry subscription is 10.99 Euro which is $19.30 NZD, so I would have to pay $30.29 NZD for 30 days of this game.

I don't think so. I'd be paying almost double what PlayStation and PC/MAC and Steam players pay.
Infact I would be paying double and then some if I either had a Standard subscription which is 12.99 Euro or the Ultimate version game pass which is $21.95 NZD.

If I remember correctly when I played Final Fantasy XI Online on my PlayStation2 and SE finally added the Xbox 360 version, and I got that at the time, they did not force us to have Xbox Live Gold to play.
*Ah yes, you could use Xbox Live Silver, no charge.

I really wanted to play this on my Xbox along with my PC, but since I don't already have a Game Pass, I will pass on this.

The only people this doesn't affect is Xbox Core or Ultimate pass users and I feel this is actually what played a part in this decision, as if you already are one of those people this won't matter as you'd still need to pay the monthly Final Fantasy XIV subscription anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moomba33

Disappointing news.
I hope Sony doesn't start demanding PS+ for 14 after this. >_>

---

If the PS version of FFXIV doesn't require PS+ then it probably doesn't need anything from Sony's backend to function.

Microsoft has had a history of wanting to stick their fingers into every pie they can find which likely includes requirements for SE to utilize part of the XBL net structure setup for their consoles just to have them connect to the game server. That was the biggest hurdle in getting FFXI on the 360 and I also believe part of the reason why they dropped that version later. I also recall Microsoft in the past refusing to allow titles on xbox consoles if the developers didn't put a minimum amount of achievements in the game which resulted in a fair amount of titles that could be used for gamer score fluffing because players could get all the achievements in them in a matter of an hour or 2.

So... there's something I don't quite understand, mainly because I haven't owned an XBOX since the 360 but... is Live Gold still a thing? Does this mean you need GamePass but not Gold? Or are they the same thing nowadays? If it's on GamePass, does that mean XBOX users never have to buy the game or the expansions and just access the game as long as they're subbed? Can you play without Gold as long as you have GamePass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

So... there's something I don't quite understand, mainly because I haven't owned an XBOX since the 360 but... is Live Gold still a thing? Does this mean you need GamePass but not Gold? Or are they the same thing nowadays? If it's on GamePass, does that mean XBOX users never have to buy the game or the expansions and just access the game as long as they're subbed? Can you play without Gold as long as you have GamePass?

---

I think the gold subscription was renamed the game pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

So... there's something I don't quite understand, mainly because I haven't owned an XBOX since the 360 but... is Live Gold still a thing? Does this mean you need GamePass but not Gold? Or are they the same thing nowadays? If it's on GamePass, does that mean XBOX users never have to buy the game or the expansions? Can you play without Gold as long as you have GamePass?

---

Not sure. I have an XB One which I purchased just to play PSO2 when it finally got a release outside Japan and I don't recall needing to purchase any kind of additional subscription to play it. (I also got that Jedi game with it as it's free game). However it was Microsoft apparently that pushed for that release so they're probably getting a cut of all the microtransactions the game generates.

The other thing that seems to be going around is that Microsoft is supposedly finally admitting defeat in the "console wars" as they are apparently in the process of getting all their "exclusive" titles they kept off playstation on to the PS5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sindriiisgaming

freelancers are still very much at there disposal

---

Not exclusively. And while Yoko Taro's past success justifies putting a whole team together, Matsuno's involvement with SE after Final Fantasy XII's tumultuous development was writing scenario for side content in XIV. He left SE for a reason.

XBox has pretty much been a subscription console since the original with XBox Live.

This is an awful precedent to set, but I honestly wonder how many XBox owners it will actually impact at this point.

Not that I really want to let square enix off the hook but Microsoft is pushing “every Xbox owner should have gamepass” that this really doesn’t surprise me

I’m assuming Microsoft is coming from the angle of “they probably already have gamepass so really they are just paying for the 14 subscription” and square doesn’t really care either way

It was dead in the water anyway. Most people who want to play the game already are. The announcement of the Xbox version to an audience of people who already play on other platforms said it all.

There may be some new players over time who play exclusively on Xbox who can't bring themselves to buy a desktop computer/laptop for some reason, but I don't think there will be this gigantic rush that is being imagined.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardeth

two subscriptions are required to play on the Xbox unless you're on the Free Trial...

---

Are you sure two will be required? What if SE gets their cut of the Gamepass fee?

Quote:

---

I wouldn't be surprised if this is discontinued after a time.

---

I don't think so. It's an option, even if not many take it up. It's probably trivial to maintain it provided Xbox can support graphics improvements on par with the Playstation, because they already have support for gamepads of various types.

Very disappointing news. This doesn't only affect potential new Xbox players. During a time when PC players would be checking their specs for the graphics update, upgrading to an Xbox in a household of multiple console XIV players would make perfect sense, especially if you already have one PS5. But of course the crucial details were only revealed several months later...

Alright, I double checked and XB Live Gold is now GamePass Core.

So... that's half of my doubts cleared, but does this mean then that GamePass users get the game for free? Because that's the point of GamePass. It's gonna be so funny if XB users are also required to buy the game and expansions, though If I was PlayStation, I'd be telling everyone that they don't need PS+ to play the game on PlayStation.

THe game will be free with gamepass, but will have to poay through gamepass. This can probably be negated if theres a physical option avilable.

FFXI on 360 didn't require Xbox Live Gold.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiaDeem

Alright, I double checked and XB Live Gold is now GamePass Core.

So... that's half of my doubts cleared, but does this mean then that GamePass users get the game for free? Because that's the point of GamePass. It's gonna be so funny if XB users are also required to buy the game and expansions, though If I was PlayStation, I'd be telling everyone that they don't need PS+ to play the game on PlayStation.

---

I'd base it on whatever they did on Xbox for other retail MMOs like Elderscrolls Online. Though that might not be the best example now since MS acquired Bethesda/Zenimax.

Given how they essentially handed the PS4 the win in that era over the Xbox One by rushing out info about everything having DRM protection and requiring internet access when showcasing the console before launch which basically allowed Sony to simply say "The PS4 won't have that stuff" and have almost everyone move over to them. I'd expect them to follow it's structuring on PSN for purchases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

I'd base it on whatever they did on Xbox for other retail MMOs like Elderscrolls Online. Though that might not be the best example now since MS acquired Bethesda/Zenimax.

Given how they essentially handed the PS4 the win in that era over the Xbox One by rushing out info about everything having DRM protection and requiring internet access when showcasing the console before launch which basically allowed Sony to simply say "The PS4 won't have that stuff" and have almost everyone move over to them. I'd expect them to follow it's structuring on PSN for purchases.

---

Well ESO was like that prior to the acquisition. So it's valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strawberrycake

THe game will be free with gamepass, but will have to poay through gamepass.

---

I doubt that this is the case considering that Game Pass Core only comes with a catalogue of about 20-something games. It's definitely sounding like you need to purchase the game on top of having a Game Pass subscription.

Buying the game, plus the GamePass subscription, PLUS the game sub???

https://image.myanimelist.net/ui/OK6...R8-Z2xalIgO-dg

I guess they don't see a problem with it, because anyone who has an Xbox pretty much has to pay for Xbox Gold as is for any online game, and likely already are for all their gaming needs lmao.

Xbox sucks so bad for this and pretty much always has.

"To play on Xbox, you will need to link your Microsoft account and Square Enix account. You will not be able to unlink the accounts once linked. "

I am always a bit dubious and would not be surprise but does this imply that if you link account to MS and want to play on PC that you may need a gamepass also + 14 sub? feels a bit like the steam restriction potential issue. I would stick to PC/PS5/Mac using non steam I suppose.

So if i then cancel my xbox sub, just want to play on PC... will it simply remain agnostic of linking my 14 account is what I am wondering. I get linking PS5 it requires PSN etc but not if M$ make some money grabbing nuance.

I hope they clarify that they actual mean "The Free Trial version" is what requires GamePass Core/Ultimate (still not a good look) after this beta test and NOT the actual Full Paid Client version. Otherwise double dipping is GG and a no go for me. I was all excited too since I recently upgraded to a Series X awaiting this beta only for them to exclude us now to just the new players. I've been here since Ps3 Beta days. What a defeat if this is all true. This feels off as you can play free games such as Rocket League & Apex Legends online with no GamePass. Really hoping this was just a misunderstanding for the Free Trial version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RitsukoSonoda

If the PS version of FFXIV doesn't require PS+ then it probably doesn't need anything from Sony's backend to function.

Microsoft has had a history of wanting to stick their fingers into every pie they can find which likely includes requirements for SE to utilize part of the XBL net structure setup for their consoles just to have them connect to the game server. That was the biggest hurdle in getting FFXI on the 360 and I also believe part of the reason why they dropped that version later. I also recall Microsoft in the past refusing to allow titles on xbox consoles if the developers didn't put a minimum amount of achievements in the game which resulted in a fair amount of titles that could be used for gamer score fluffing because players could get all the achievements in them in a matter of an hour or 2.

---

The reason it took so long to get FFXI on 360 was because Microsoft didn't agree to the patching policy the POL was using. Sony had complete control over POL as a service and it's patching QA policies. Believe it or not, but every patch must be inspected for viruses and code that can potentially brick a console. It would be very bad business decision to allow a bad patch file to be downloaded on 20+ Million machines...and then Sony or Microsoft is left fixing the issue.

So Microsoft had I believe at the time a MORE stringent QA policy then Sony did during the PS2 days which led to the game never coming to OG XBOX until around 2006 after the 360 launched. By then POL was a dead program as Sony phased it out as PS3 was pretty much out by then. It was just a sign of the times and the biter rivalry between to large companies.

FFXIV was also not immune to this issue as it has also been stated that Microsoft wanted more control over patch QA process, and I believe it was SE this time that didn't agree for a long time about how they should implement there patches and updates. Not to mention cross platform play being another contributor. Honestly, I couldn't care at all if I played with a PC, XBOX or PS5 player on the other end. I wish these companies would just combine there networks so we can all just play together no matter what machine we play on.

I don't think anyone thought it could never work on XBOX because it wasn't powerful enough...but it was just bureaucracy behind the scenes that really was the main issue and microsoft being microsoft.

Games that are inherently online-only should not require any other payment. If there is a game that has a single-player / local only option, that's one thing. But this game shouldn't have an added fee. The player is already paying that. Xbox simply shouldn't offer the game at all if they intend on tacking on an extra payment on top of it. But, that's capitalism. Players can let their voices be heard by not buying xboxes in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PaulH

"To play on Xbox, you will need to link your Microsoft account and Square Enix account. You will not be able to unlink the accounts once linked. "

I am always a bit dubious and would not be surprise but does this imply that if you link account to MS and want to play on PC that you may need a gamepass also + 14 sub? feels a bit like the steam restriction potential issue. I would stick to PC/PS5/Mac using non steam I suppose.

So if i then cancel my xbox sub, just want to play on PC... will it simply remain agnostic of linking my 14 account is what I am wondering. I get linking PS5 it requires PSN etc but not if M$ make some money grabbing nuance.

---

The SE/Steam launcher is completely separate from any Microsoft services. So game pass will never be a requirement on PC. I don't think Microsoft wants to cause an easy anti-trust suit against them from the other PC storefronts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosha

The SE/Steam launcher is completely separate from any Microsoft services. So game pass will never be a requirement on PC.

---

Yeah GamePass business model is pretty bad when you look at other alternatives. What blows my mind is how Microsoft can get away with putting their 1st party titles on gamepass...at NO extra cost?! As a business model...this is terrible. Microsoft is literally banking on the idea that people WANT to play these games, but the customer doesn't need to pay full price...in an industry where games are now $70....because math. If anything it's consumer friendly I guess...it's cheap if the game is terrible (Red Fall, Starfield).

But I HIGHLY doubt Microsoft is enjoying the numbers they are getting from GamePass...as i'm sure it brings in a truck load of revenue...I would like to see the balance sheet on what Microsoft is paying for. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are spending WAY more then they want to which is eating into their profits. Microsoft should put there exclusives on other platforms and sell them for $70. That would generate a crap load of revenue to offset the loss of profits from GamePass.

they are bleeding money like every tech industry atm, look at how many people Microsoft just laid off from these fields, poor wow thought Microsoft was the savior come to liberate their game but first thing they did was fire a load of people and put a call of duty rep in charge. these companies are not who they were when they gained our trust, and they are cashing in on us not realizing that.

Not allowing existing players to participate in the test and requiring two monthly subscriptions is definitely going to drive away a good chuck of the potential audience...

Only W I see coming out of this if somehow someway GamePass eats the monthly sub (huge doubt). No way I see a scenario where a Free Player thinks to themselves:

"You know what? Let's pay $59.99+ for the complete edition plus $9.99+ for GamePass plus $12.99+ for monthly sub plus $39.99+ for future expansions now."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sqwall

Yeah GamePass business model is pretty bad when you look at other alternatives. What blows my mind is how Microsoft can get away with putting their 1st party titles on gamepass...at NO extra cost?! As a business model...this is terrible. Microsoft is literally banking on the idea that people WANT to play these games, but the customer doesn't need to pay full price...in an industry where games are now $70....because math. If anything it's consumer friendly I guess...it's cheap if the game is terrible (Red Fall, Starfield).

But I HIGHLY doubt Microsoft is enjoying the numbers they are getting from GamePass...as i'm sure it brings in a truck load of revenue...I would like to see the balance sheet on what Microsoft is paying for. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are spending WAY more then they want to which is eating into their profits. Microsoft should put there exclusives on other platforms and sell them for $70. That would generate a crap load of revenue to offset the loss of profits from GamePass.

---

Why would they charge extra for their games on their own platform that defeats the purpose of their business model.

By other platforms you mean just the PS5? What they are already considering doing from the reports I've read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosha

Why would they charge extra for their games on their own platform that defeats the purpose of their business model.

By other platforms you mean just the PS5? What they are already considering doing from the reports I've read.

---

I just fail to see from a profit stand point how that is a viable business model. If a games development was $200 million lets say...just a number here. And the average cost of GamePass is $10 a month and roughly 25 million subscribers. That seems kinda of limiting when they could be charging a reduced rate for GamePass holders....say like $40 for a triple AAA, $30 for AA, and $20 for Indie. This alone would be a huge boon for XBOX users and PC gamers.

GamePass Model:
25,000,000 * 10 = $250,000,000 Sales - $200,000,000 Cost of development = $50,000,000 Profit

GamePass Model w/ reduced prices for AAA games:
25,000,000 * 10 = $250,000,000 Sales - $200,000,000 Cost of development = $50,000,000 Profit
Let's say the game sells additional 3,000,000 Copies at $40 = $120,000,000 Profit
Let's say they also sell $1,000,000 on PS5 if they were to go multiplatform at $70 a unit =$70,000,000
$120,000,000 + $50,000,000 + $70,000,000 = $240,000,000 in one month

Old Model vs. New proposed model:
$50,000,000 - $240,000,000 = $190,000,000 sitting on the table because GamePass is to cheap and in my opinion hindering game development. If there is only a 3 billion cash flow each year...that REALLY limits the amount of titles they can develop at one time...and games take YEARS to make. GamePass is literally banking on the "wait and see, you'll like it when it comes out" subscription methodology. I don't know about you...but I would do what I do with streaming services....ditch them when i'm done with the show, and reup when it's back.

Microsoft needs to get better marketing and FIRE the budget managers they currently have....because GamePass isn't sustainable if they don't get 25million more subscribers in the next 3 years. Eventually those numbers will level out and growth will stagnate. If they are selling "premium games" then they need to market them as premium products and charge accordingly. Otherwise, you will have budgets hampering development, not creativity.

Sorry for the rant...but I deal with stuff like this everyday, and you have to understand what people are willing to pay and how to market something, while being fiscally responsible. You don't get rich selling poor quality items, you'll make a lot of money, but you have to think about the next item you need to sell.

Sony has been selling their AAA titles at $70 with NO reduced price. You pay the sticker price. This can be anti consumer initially, as you are helping your title underperform at launch. The die hard fans and people with disposable income will go ahead and pre-order. The next group that can only afford 4-5 games a year...they wait and maybe go a week or 2 later. And the really consumer savvy group will wait for a sale or reviews to come out. Crappy game...no thanks....not cheap enough so i'll wait for a sale at Christmas.

Microsoft has a GREAT opportunity here so boost the XBOX brand while taking care of their fans. "Sony has to pay $70 for exclusives, XBOX owners pay $40" is that fair? When it comes to brand....your competitor doesn't have to follow your rules, but you can offer them a choice...most times they take the deal, but the REAL thing XBOX should be thinking is how do we gain a customer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ardeth

"The Free Trial version, including the open beta test, will not require an Xbox Game Pass (Core or Ultimate) plan to play. However, the full Xbox Series X|S version will require an Xbox Game Pass (Core or Ultimate) plan to play."

This bothers me. I lost my linked PSN account. Unfortunately, ticket after ticket won't let me recover it. I've made peace with that. Luckily, I also have an Xbox. Now I don't care. Good job messing that up. Now, two subscriptions are required to play on the Xbox unless you're on the Free Trial...

You really messed up on this one. I wouldn't be surprised if this is discontinued after a time.

---

This is almost certainly a Microsoft decision, not a Square or CBU3 decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowVix

This is almost certainly a Microsoft decision, not a Square or CBU3 decision.

---

Even so, SE had to ok the deal. It's such a mornic proposition that I would've told them I've changed my mind. It's the lowest selling console of this generation. It's representation in their home country of Japan is laughable. And now, to add a cherry to the sundae of bad ideas, it costs more to play it on it. Seriously, I had hopes sanity would prevale, and we would see a retraction after everyone making fun of how stupid it is. But here we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowVix

This is almost certainly a Microsoft decision, not a Square or CBU3 decision.

---

Given this was initially posted by SE on the Lodestone alongside the Xbox beta news I have to imagine SE knows given they posted the info. I am guessing SE finally found it reasonable either due to changes in opinion thanks to new leadership or Microsoft offering more to the deal we are unaware of at this moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnowVix

This is almost certainly a Microsoft decision, not a Square or CBU3 decision.

---

Square is down 2 Billion in Value and SE has allowed and still allows Nintendo and Sony to treat them this way as well. Historically SE has always allowed Console companies to have the upper hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sqwall

The reason it took so long to get FFXI on 360 was because Microsoft didn't agree to the patching policy the POL was using. Sony had complete control over POL as a service and it's patching QA policies. Believe it or not, but every patch must be inspected for viruses and code that can potentially brick a console. It would be very bad business decision to allow a bad patch file to be downloaded on 20+ Million machines...and then Sony or Microsoft is left fixing the issue.

So Microsoft had I believe at the time a MORE stringent QA policy then Sony did during the PS2 days which led to the game never coming to OG XBOX until around 2006 after the 360 launched. By then POL was a dead program as Sony phased it out as PS3 was pretty much out by then. It was just a sign of the times and the biter rivalry between to large companies.

FFXIV was also not immune to this issue as it has also been stated that Microsoft wanted more control over patch QA process, and I believe it was SE this time that didn't agree for a long time about how they should implement there patches and updates. Not to mention cross platform play being another contributor. Honestly, I couldn't care at all if I played with a PC, XBOX or PS5 player on the other end. I wish these companies would just combine there networks so we can all just play together no matter what machine we play on.

I don't think anyone thought it could never work on XBOX because it wasn't powerful enough...but it was just bureaucracy behind the scenes that really was the main issue and microsoft being microsoft.

---

FF11 didn't come out on the original xbox was because it didn't have a big enough hard drive to support ff11 which is why it didn't come to xbox until the 360 was released it wasn't because of Microsoft's policies or Sony having control of playonline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nebelheim

FF11 didn't come out on the original xbox was because it didn't have a big enough hard drive to support ff11 which is why it didn't come to xbox until the 360 was released it wasn't because of Microsoft's policies or Sony having control of playonline.

---

I think that could have been easily fixed on the OG XBOX, and microsoft would have sold bigger hard drives no problem if it meant more games on the system. Consumers would have bought them easily. Another missed opportunity, and back when a bigger HDD was a VERY big deal and bragging rights. I remember buying HDD's nearly every year in the late 90's and early 2000's because 20g was cheap, then 40g was cheap, then 120g was cheap. For like $75-$100 you could get a decent upgrade and add a ton of storage. PS2 launched with NO internet adapter or HDD....yet that didn't stop Sony from delivering

I don't believe that was the hurdle the OG XBOX was facing. The problem was FFXI was primarily a JAP game with a slightly smaller NA playerbase. SE and Sony at the time had a pretty tight relationship late 90's early 2000's, which was IMO one of the reasons you saw POL developed for PS2. Some of those old Square managers were probably still there and might have been difficult to get over those long term relationships SE had with Sony. SE didn't really go multiplat til maybe 2004? 2008? Hard to say.

Wiki Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayOnline

Service
PlayOnline was seen as part of Sony's strategy to turn the PlayStation 2 into an Internet set-top box. Accordingly, Sony brought broadband equipment and a hard drive to the PlayStation 2.[10] The quality of the browser was noted in its "clean" graphics, excellent page layouts, and "high quality sound".[10] The browser was not a general purpose Internet tool, but only accessed Square content, such as news about Square products and a comic-strip walkthrough of Final Fantasy XI.[10]

Porting Final Fantasy XI to the Xbox proved difficult due to compatibility issues greater than was hoped for between Xbox Live and PlayOnline, likely because the latter was designed first.[11] After negotiation, Xbox 360 players were able to play the game through PlayOnline's servers exclusively, despite Microsoft's initial wish that Square Enix would use its own platform.[11] Downloadable content was also not available on the platform since the game played through PlayOnline.[11] It was hoped that content would eventually be offered through the Xbox Live Marketplace.[11] Final Fantasy XII started out as a game designed for the PlayOnline game platform.[12]

Again...microsoft just being microsoft....want to control everything with no skin in the game. They eventually gave into Playonline and we are seeing the same situation today with FFXIV. When your trying to sell consoles/hardware which could be MORE software and consoles/hardware....don't dismiss games being offered...make a deal.

When you sell a table to a family....it's gonna need chairs. A chair by itself is just a chair.

While I agree that this is definitely annoying for xbox players, but don't xbox players normally have to pay for game pass regardless for any of the games they play that are online? I think majority of them already pay for that, then they pay the game sub like any of us do.

I'm not too much into the whole conversation about how Microsoft is being bad on things, so I don't know much about that since I don't play on xbox anymore. I guess they could've done it like how playstation does with not requiring an online sub to play FFXIV (at least I think they don't require that? I never owned a playstation so I'm not sure)

I'm not agreeing with it, I think it's annoying, I'm just saying from what I assume that normally people who play xbox already pay an online sub.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EstelleCere

While I agree that this is definitely annoying for xbox players, but don't xbox players normally have to pay for game pass regardless for any of the games they play that are online? I think majority of them already pay for that, then they pay the game sub like any of us do.

I'm not too much into the whole conversation about how Microsoft is being bad on things, so I don't know much about that since I don't play on xbox anymore. I guess they could've done it like how playstation does with not requiring an online sub to play FFXIV (at least I think they don't require that? I never owned a playstation so I'm not sure)

I'm not agreeing with it, I think it's annoying, I'm just saying from what I assume that normally people who play xbox already pay an online sub.

---

Sony requires at least PS+ (base offer) to play online multiplayer. Free to Play games do not need PS+...handful of games (fornite, neverwinter).

FFXIV is an anomaly as it's a paid subscription game, but it doesn't require PS+ to play. You need PSN account to login to the game (free just need a PSN account). You don't need PS+ (paid membership). However, if PSN is down...you can NOT play the game. So if the FFXIV servers are up, and you have network connectivity you simply can't even login if PSN is down. This has happened to me maybe a hand full of times.

Hot take: the problem is Square Enix, not Microsoft. Requiring a monthly subscription without guaranteed content each month is a very outdated concept. Most live-service games sell you a piece of content, like a battle pass, once per "season" that replaces the need for a subscription. All the normal functions of a subscription-based game, like new maps and gameplay content, are there, and the company is well-funded. But you are paying for the content, not the access. If there is no content, you do not have to pay. Final Fantasy XIV makes you pay regardless of whether there is new content. And Square Enix doesn't give us new content every month. Even World of Warcraft, the only other major subscription-based MMO, has monthly updates. FFXIV is a freakish anomaly in that it's using an old model and it's using it incorrectly.

It's 2024, why is Square Enix still clinging to old tricks (and failing)? Perhaps they should read the room and realize that no one else is stuck this far behind. Given that there are countless live-service games on Game Pass without an extra sub, it seems that requiring two subs is on Square Enix and not Microsoft.

Yeaaaaah, my gut tells me we don't have the complete story and we've got a bunch of pseudo-journalist running around with scissors.

I just do not see Yoshi-P letting his baby in the care of the most reckless driver in the industry without wearing a safety helmet and some insurance, and a replacement baby just for caution.