>>15516798
Yeah, but I mean did they outright get cheap ones ones on the VC and PSN prior, or was it being ignored in both regions for whatever reasons (the way Namco apparently hasn't bothered to digitally rerelease the three PS1 Tales games anywhere, even Japan, though admittedly of those only Eternia hasn't had a remake on other systems, and just a PSP port)? Last rerelease I'd heard of for I-III, not counting the mobileshitter ones, was an anniversary collection on the Wii of the Famicom and SFC versions, which obviously we didn't get here.
>As for SquareEnix disliking past Enix projects seems either the western branch does have a goon mentality and hate DQ in general and or its the whole Japan honor respect thing where they dont want to step on anyone's samurai swords.
I've heard a notion that they'd rather push Square series here, be it because they have to work less to market those (at least some anyhow; SaGa probably needs more than Final Fantasy) for reliable sales due to existing familiarity, which if so that doesn't stop them from pumping stupid amounts of money into promoting what probably doesn't need that much, or because in the merger Square got more control of what the joint company does or something (admittedly hearsay, and I see plenty of back and forth about which company was the one that ruined the other).
>goon mentality
Insofar as what? Are Dragon Quest, Tri-Ace's works, Quintet's works, etc too Japanese for them somehow? Or do you mean more keeping the focus on what they want to promote and thus gatekeep new fans? Clearly they retained publishing for Dragon Quest and Tri-Ace's old IPs (the games Tri-Ace made under them, anyhow), and while I'd say I wasn't sure if they did for Quintet, ActRaiser being on the Wii VC proves they at least had that one. I'd think rereleasing those would just be easy money on their part. That said,
>paying for digital games.
>>15516787
While there's something to said for experimenting, there's also something to be said for stability, and not changing things too much outside of deliberate spin offs. Whereas Final Fantasy has been all over the place for a while, the teams for Dragon Quest (which have been many over the years) seem content to not try to push for too much change, leaving it mainly particular nuances in certain games (classes in III, VI, and VII, individual prologues in IV, monster catching/generational story in V, etc) while overall still playing similarly. Though, one could also say that "more of the same" too often could be taken as boring and stagnant too, depending on who's asked.
>>15516814
Reminder that Enix was almost always just a publisher, and rarely involved in development, at least from looking through credits. Just saying since I still see people confuse them as dual developer/publisher like Square was. But ultimately, it's a mixture of marketing differences, brand strength (consider how Square used to be the go-to name for JRPGs and in a way probably still is for many "tip of the iceberg" sorts), and lack of cheap and easy accessibility past what physical copies there are and emulation these days (and emulation is still a gray area for the average person).