Talk:Square Enix

Disagreement regarding Sora not being a Square Enix character

Sora is a Square Enix character. The Kingdom Hearts franchise is not fully owned by Disney. The reason is that Disney needs permission from Square Enix employee Tetsuya Nomura, creator and director of the series, to get the greenlight, so technically, and ultimately, Square Enix does own Kingdom Hearts. If Sora were really a Disney character, he would be in non-Square Enix games (a Monster Hunter game, for example), where Square Enix is not given any credit or even mentioned at all, but I doubt Nomura would allow that. Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 18:21, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Disney asks Nomura out of respect despite Disney owning the character. They don’t ask permission because they have to but because they want to. Thegameandwatch The Nerd 23:43, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Disney owns all properties related to Kingdom Hearts, Sora included. It was what Disney and Square Enix agreed to when they opted to create a new protagonist for the collaboration. -- PanchamBro (talk • contributions) 18:30, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

If you still doubt us, just look it up on Google. Almost all the results state that Sora, as well as Kingdom Hearts in general, is owned by Disney. CookiesCreme 19:42, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

In addition to what Cookies and Pancham said, if we were to give anything related to Kingdom Hearts on this Wiki the Square Enix category, then we would also have to give the company categories to any content from games that are made by said companies but not owned by them (e.g. giving anything Four Swords/The Minish Cap-related the Capcom tag; anything Star Fox: Assault or Donkey Konga-related the Namco tag; anything Mario Hoops-related the Square Enix tag; etc.). While I wouldn't mind this, per se, it's still something that needs a consensus first in order to be implemented. The Jacketed Terrapin 21:14, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

“Sora belongs to SQUARE Enix.

Kingdom Heart series are cooperation attempt between Disney and Square Enix but there is a clear separation between them.

The characters each brought to the game are their own copyrighted materials from their own studios (which is evident from the game’s ending screen) and even so you could see Disney characters’ being level bosses (including Maleficent who was a sub-final boss), the end boss will always be SQUARE Enix’s choice.

This is because Disney is more “rigid” than SQUARE ENIX. Their “villains” are preset - which means they cannot be defeated in any way except how their movies had played out. You cannot defeat Ursula (The Little Mermaid) without Ariel’s and Neptune’s help. You cannot defeat the hunter (forgot his name) without Tarzan’s help and so on.

This allows a greater flexibility for SQUARE ENIX to model their own villains and use it however they want.”
-- Gobi Subramaniam in Quora

So ultimately, contrary to what the Google search results claim, by controlling the franchise, Square Enix does own Kingdom Hearts. Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 21:34, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Quora is far from a reliable source. PokemonMasterJamal3 (talk) 21:55, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

The copyright notice for Sora literally only credits Disney without an ounce of Square Enix being there. Similarly, the copyright notices for the series (I would link to the image if Fandom's image linking system wasn't broken beyond repair) only credit Square Enix as the developer of the series and the owners of the Final Fantasy characters.

Also, citing a Quora post that doesn't have any sources to back up its claims is not really a good way to prove your point. The Jacketed Terrapin 21:56, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Developing a franchise, and being a bottleneck on what directions the franchise goes in, isn't really enough to say that a company "owns" the franchise. Disney could just as quickly revoke Square Enix's ability to develop the games. If we were to say that whoever makes the games and oversees promotions "owns" the franchise, then we could say that Retro Studios owns Metroid Prime and Donkey Kong Country, for example. Sincerely, Samuel the Banjo-Kazooie Boss. 22:16, October 25, 2021 (EDT)

Really? Then why is Sora labelled as one of the Square Enix mascots in List of video game mascots on Wikipedia? Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 23:58, October 26, 2021 (EDT)

Checking the edit history, Sora was added by an unknown IP, removed due to having no source, and then quickly readded by the same IP with a source, very likely a random page they just picked up from the internet. If you also check the edit summaries, it's been a nightmare of additions and removals ever since 2020, further bringing into question how legitimate the page really is. CookiesCreme 10:55, October 27, 2021 (EDT)

Ignoring for a moment the fact that there's no rule stating that a character has to belong to a company to be one of the company's mascots, it's because Wikipedia's cited articles on the matter were poorly chosen. Wikipedia is generally not a great authority to defer to in scenarios like this (JSYK this is coming from a seasoned WP editor); rather than taking the editors' wording at face value, you should check out the cited sources - I did, and I'm not impressed. (More specifically, source #30 is just a brief mention of Square E on an old article of dubious authority; and #31 doesn't necessarily call KH a Square Enix property, but is simply noting that they may have gotten in the way of keeping the Sora costume around Disney Land.) As a WP editor myself, if I wasn't strapped for time right now, I would replace the sources, change wording, or remove Sora from the list entirely, depending on what I could find. Sincerely, Samuel the Banjo-Kazooie Boss. 01:34, October 27, 2021 (EDT)

Although I know another Wiki isn't necessarily the "best" point of reference, but looking at any start up menu for any installment in the Kingdom Hearts series shows that it is Disney who "owns" the properties while Square Enix is credited as the "developers".

At the beginning of when the Kingdom Hearts games start up, it says C Disney. Also C Disney/Pixar in KH3 and MoM. It also does the same for Final Fantasy but later changed to just "characters from Square Enix games". Other properties are only specified in certain installments, Tarzan in KH1 & FM, The Nightmare Before Christmas in the original KH2 and KH CoM, Peter Pan in KH CoM & Re:CoM (listing Pan, Tinkerbell, and Hook individually by name), and Winnie the Pooh in KH3. As well as licensed by Nintendo on any of their platforms, as well as any companies and engines that worked on that specific installment. And of course, developed by Square Enix. Just looking at anyone's LP on YouTube that includes the start up shows that. In fact, here's a picture of one of the start ups regarding the copyright. Wolff (talk) 09:12, October 27, 2021 (EDT)

Although Square Enix doesn't own Sora, still need to write the relationship between the two on this page, because it's his creator, just as Platinum is for Bayonetta and Rare is for DK.--Capstalker (talk) 09:55, October 27, 2021 (EDT)

If Disney truly does truly own the Kingdom Hearts franchise, they'd have full control over the characters. But alas, they do not. Therefore, Square Enix DOES truly own Kingdom Hearts, and thus makes Sora a Square Enix character, not a Disney character. Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 07:21, November 9, 2021 (EST)

Ass-backwards logic. That's like saying because Rare are responsible for developing Diddy Kong, they own the character instead of Nintendo. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 07:51, November 9, 2021 (EST)

You're going in circles, I'll just copy-paste what I said earlier and add a little emphasis: Developing a franchise, and being a bottleneck on what directions the franchise goes in, isn't really enough to say that a company legally "owns" the franchise. Disney could just as quickly revoke Square Enix's ability to develop the games. If we were to say that whoever makes the games and oversees promotions "owns" the franchise, then we could say that Retro Studios owns Metroid Prime and Donkey Kong Country, for example. (If you don't get it, I'm trying to say that Retro doesn't and never has legally "owned" those franchises.) Sincerely, Samuel the Banjo-Kazooie Boss. 08:08, November 9, 2021 (EDT)

I agree with you but Retro Studios is actually owned by Nintendo so Rare would be better example because they developed the original Donkey Kong Country games but don't own the IP. Thegameandwatch The Nerd 08:55, November 9, 2021 (EST)

"Disney could just as quickly revoke Square Enix's ability to develop the games"
But Square Enix could easily sue Disney for revoking their (Square Enix's) ability to develop the games. Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 11:12, November 9, 2021 (EST)

Now you’re just grasping at straws, saying pretty much anything you can to get your way. Face the facts, you’re losing this argument, as you haven’t come up with any valid sources for calling Sora a Square Enix-owned character, while everyone else has come up with sources proving he is owned by Disney, or otherwise refuting your statements. Unless you can come up with some actual CITED information proving Square owns Sora, I suggest you just back off from this, this is not a hill worth dying for. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 15:50, November 9, 2021 (EST)

As The Jacketed Terrapin linked above, Sora's copyright for Smash is overtly "© Disney" with no mention of Square Enix. The fact that they develop the KH games but do not own the copyright for Sora is already mentioned in the article. There is nothing further to discuss. Miles (talk) 16:01, November 9, 2021 (EST)

Then prove why Square Enix could not easily sue Disney for revoking their (Square Enix's) ability to develop the games. Face it, Square Enix has the most representation in Smash Ultimate, and I disapprove of this. Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 21:15, November 22, 2021 (EST)

(Reset indent) Here's an example using a different dev and series, Left 4 Dead. L4D was developed by Turtle Rock Studios. Shortly after the success of L4D Valve (the company behind Steam) acquired Turtle Rock Studios and, in the process, the rights to Left 4 Dead. Turtle Rock Studios later left Valve and returned to being on their own, but Valve still retained ownership Left 4 Dead. Turtle Rock Studios was thus not allowed to do anything with L4D unless Valve said so (which they did and asked them to make Left 4 Dead 2). Valve could sue Turtle Rock Studios for making another Left 4 Dead without Valve's permission, but not the other way around since Valve is the owner of it. Same deal with Disney and Square Enix: Disney owns Sora and Kingdom Hearts despite Square Enix being the creators. If Disney wanted, they could tell SE to take a hike and let Disney's employees develop the next KH game; SE could not sue over losing KH since they don't own it. For another example, Spongebob Squarepants and its characters were made by the late Stephen Hillenburg, but Nickelodeon does not (or did not) need his permission on using the characters for whatever they want. --CanvasK (talk) 21:49, November 22, 2021 (EST)

You can disapprove of it all you like, but that doesn’t change the fact that Disney owns Sora. The evidence is clear as day. You’ve already been told by an admin (Miles) to walk away from this, I suggest you do that, lest you find yourself getting in trouble. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 22:56, November 22, 2021 (EST)

I also feel the need to point out to you that you seem to only still be participating in this argument because you want to win it. If this is true, then you should know that is definitely NOT the purpose of discussing matters on the talk page. You are standing in the way of what is otherwise a unanimous consensus that says that Sora is Disney-owned. All the evidence provided here says so, and every single argument of yours has either been refuted or disproven. Either come up with something compelling that we cannot refute, or walk away from this issue altogether. A wiki talk page is NOT a battleground; please do not turn this into one. Black Vulpine the 🦊Furry🐺. Furries make the internets go! :3 05:47, November 23, 2021 (EST)

If Disney really fully owned Kingdom Hearts, they could freely stop the collaboration with Square Enix anytime and start working with other third-party companies (e.g. SEGA, Capcom, Bandai Namco, etc.), the Kingdom Hearts would have video game characters that are not from Square Enix, and the articles on the internet would only mention "Disney's Kingdom Hearts", not "Disney and Square Enix's Kingdom Hearts", but alas, none of this will ever happen. In addition, Sora is Nomura's creation, and therefore his baby. And Kingdom Hearts is his creation, and therefore his treasure, which is why Disney cannot revoke Square Enix's ability to develop the games without being sued. Let's not ignore the fact that there are people like me who believe that Kingdom Hearts belongs to Square Enix, not Disney. Disney really needs to break this myth and stop relying too much on Square Enix when it comes to Kingdom Hearts, which technically makes Square Enix have the most representation in Smash Ultimate, and as I said before, I disapprove of this sour fact. Seeing that Square Enix is treating Nintendo like sh**, Square Enix having the most representation in Smash Ultimate is...painfully ironic... Smash64MeleeBrawl4Ultimate (talk) 09:46, March 28, 2022 (EDT)