daTRUballin
Member
Well, they're kind of owned by Microsoft dude. They can't just port their games to non-Xbox platforms.
Oh wow. Hit you pretty hard, didn't it?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
It Has Now Been 15 Years Since Microsoft Purchased Rare
- Thread starter daTRUballin
- Start date
Well, they're kind of owned by Microsoft dude. They can't just port their games to non-Xbox platforms.
Oh wow. Hit you pretty hard, didn't it?
Not sure if i get how anybody thinks Nintendo buying Rare would have made a huge difference. Sure it would have helped in some droughts later on but whether or not the games would have been good is entirely speculative. Had Rare become a first party developer i think allot of the talent would have left anyway. Nintendo just like Microsoft would not have given Rare the same amount of freedom they had during the Snes-N64 era. There is a reason why Nintendo likes to outsource and approach different developers instead of owning different studios because most of the talent can just get up and leave. Heck to be fair to Microsoft they gave Rare plenty of freedom early on and it did not work out so well the games sold like shit. Hence why they took the studio in a different direction with Kinect. Sometime Rare was a quantity first quality later studio anyway.
A great run? Do you realize what Rare used to be?
Its been a shit show since MS bought them, they are barely a shadow of their former self.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Nintendo didn't give rare a lot of freedom there's plenty of developers discussions about the relationship that said as such. It's arguably because of that is how they maintained a degree of quality control on their titles.
daTRUballin
Member
Take a look at Retro Studios. Did all their talent leave too? I'm not sure about all, but I do know a big chunk of the Metroid Prime team isn't there anymore, and they seem to be doing very well anyway.
Nintendo oversees their studios much better than Microsoft does for sure. There's no debating that. So when you look at a studio like Retro who has lost a ton of talent but still manages to make high quality games, why would you worry about a Nintendo-owned Rare? Like I said earlier, it's not always about what talent resides at a studio. It's about who is leading these studios by their hand. It's about who is managing these studios. And from what we've seen, Nintendo usually does a great job in this regard.
No. Nintendo gave Rare plenty of freedom. Certainly more than Microsoft. It's just that they were pushy about certain things. Plenty of Rare staffers have confirmed that Nintendo mostly left them to their own devices when making games. Let's not attribute all of Rare's work only to Nintendo, please.
You think something like Conker's Bad Fur Day would've existed if Nintendo didn't give any freedom to Rare? Lol
nekkid
It doesn't matter who we are, what matters is our plan.
You come across as oddly angry that someone doesnt share the same opinion as you.
wapplew
Member
Sea of Thieves will put Rare back to it's glory days.
Im not angry but the opinion that its been a great run seems so odd to me, Rare used to be legends, the best of the best, now they are barely relevant, just another meaningless studio for the most part. I feel like only people who were really young back than and who didnt get to know the legenday Rare can claim that its been great since.
I really hope so, even though I dont care about such online experiences, it would be great to see a real classic by Rare again.
GrinWithoutaKat
Neo Member
For what it's worth, I don't think MS killed Rare. They were already doomed before the take over. It's like when Chelsea bought Fernando Torres. Everyone seems to think that they bought this amazing footballer and ruined him, but forget he'd been garbage for over a year before the transfer. Most of the talent had left Rare already. They might not have ended up doing motion based sports games with Nintendo, but I doubt they've have made games much better than same of the 360 output.
DongBeetle
Banned
Plenty of solid games under Microsoft until the Kinect shitshow. Viva Pinata series is probably the best they've done ever
The Greek Freak
Member
Viva pinata and banjo nuts and bolts are the only good games rare ever made to be honest.
Well, they're kind of owned by Microsoft dude. They can't just port their games to non-Xbox platforms.
Oh wow. Hit you pretty hard, didn't it?
Viva piñata on DS, diddy kong racing remake, age of empires 2 (made by majesco though and different sub-genre) and even, there was going to be a halo game. I don't think this is unpossible. It could even be a great cashflow for them amd Microsoft.
DongBeetle
Banned
Definitely outclasses most if not all of their N64 stuff.
Rare and Retro despite some artificial similarities are very different studios. Retro designs games much more in line with how Nintendo does despite being western technically. The mechanics come first and then they build everything else around them. This was the case as soon as Nintendo purchased Retro. Rare on the other hand tends to do things in a much different way that is more in line with most western studios then how Nintendo does. This probably resulted in some culture clash between the two companies. Nintendo straight up refused to publish something like Conker and had to put a huge stop sign at the idea of Rare adding actual guns to DK64. Also plenty of staff have left Retro not sure of the exact numbers but they used to be over a hundred people working there now there are significantly less. They are in good health but management can only go so far.
All of this matters because believe it or not Rare would have changed drastically under Nintendo and it probably remained more like old Rare since it got bought by Microsoft than it would have been if Nintendo bought them. Microsoft gave Rare tons of freedom initially all the missteps were entirely Rares during the original Xbox and early 360 era. From a business point of view you might disagree with Nintendo's decision but them selling 49% of Rare gave them boatloads amounts of money. Buying the rest of Rare and managing that studio and hoping that most of the talent does not leave is expensive and risky as fuck. It makes complete sense why they chose to sell Rare.
Alpha Phoenix
Member
Conker and Kameo were good. That's about it.
As much as I like Xbox/MS, this is a prime example of mismanagement of talent.
As much as I like Xbox/MS, this is a prime example of mismanagement of talent.
LukasTaves
Member
The two kinect sports games alone probably made them more money than that they paid for Rare.
And there's also the avatars which made tons of money for Ms as well.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Used to be in the 80-ish range, but they're back up to over a hundred.
Cygnus X-1
Member
I remember to be quite shocked and annoyed 15 years ago. I also was 15 at that time
Nevertheless, I honestly wished Nintendo would have purchased Rareware at that time - I believe there were a very good fit. I have no idea why Nintendo did not - and I remember a recent interview from Chris and Tim Stamper, in which they also stated how surprised they were Nintendo didn't.
Nevertheless, I honestly wished Nintendo would have purchased Rareware at that time - I believe there were a very good fit. I have no idea why Nintendo did not - and I remember a recent interview from Chris and Tim Stamper, in which they also stated how surprised they were Nintendo didn't.
daTRUballin
Member
Can't say I agree about the missteps during the original Xbox and early 360 eras all being Rare's fault. It would've helped if Microsoft actually gave Rare's games a decent marketing campaign worth a shit during this period, y'know. The only times where marketing was decent was Viva Piñata and PDZ I guess.
Let's not forget about all the cancelled games during this period either. They also forced them to rush Kameo and PDZ out the door for the 360 launch and censored Conker: L&R. Anything that wasn't family friendly was basically cancelled because MS wanted Rare to only release cartoony, family friendly games to attract the Nintendo audience to the Xbox systems. The fact that PDZ is the last adult/M-rated game they released all the way back in 2005 is pretty telling. Doesn't exactly sound like complete freedom to me. I also wouldn't doubt it if MS had something to do with the way Nuts & Bolts turned out either, but that's just me speculating as there's no evidence for this, of course.
Obviously Rare would have to share some of the blame for their missteps, but MS was of absolutely no help whatsoever.
Cygnus X-1
Member
That's really interesting, I had no idea. From a strategic point of view, that's brilliant.
:lol, you made me laugh hard here
But it's true - Nintendo sold the company for an outrageous amount of money compared with the real value of the company at that time, but if they bought the company for a smaller amount before entering in the bid spiral by accepting the first Stamper offer, they would have take better care of their IPs and that surely would have helped the Gamecube.
Well, what's done is done, but I still believe that while Nintendo lost something with this, Rare lost it all - they are quite insignificant now. And Microsoft remains with a big fat zero in their hands.
Rare had some nice ideas over those years but implemention of controls and features was were they lost me. It was a challenge that turned me right off when other games rarely fall at those hurdles. It was complicated to a fault or presented in a terrible way.
Sea of Theives is GaaS right so there may be a chance for them yet and don't forget they do some tech stuff for Xbox, the water is something we heard recently and they've done Avatars too.
Sea of Theives is GaaS right so there may be a chance for them yet and don't forget they do some tech stuff for Xbox, the water is something we heard recently and they've done Avatars too.
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Worst thing Nintendo ever let happen business-wise, Rare was just as good as Nintendo first party and should have been made first party by then already.
Sadly it turned out different.
It could have helped out the GC a lot and even the succers of Wii could have been even bigger with rare games.
Sadly it turned out different.
Because as far as snes and N64 area for Nintendo buyers, Rare = Nintendo in quality and amount of game releases that were on par with Nintendo itself.
It could have helped out the GC a lot and even the succers of Wii could have been even bigger with rare games.
Cygnus X-1
Member
That's the thing: I believe Nintendo also decided to go ahead because many key people left the company by the early 2000s. For the same token, the Stamper Brothers decided at that time to sell Rare. I believe they felt Rare would have gone downhill and tried to bank as much as they could at the pinnacle of their reputation.
Digital Savior
Member
I would like a new Viva Piñata please.
Seems pretty silly to hate a great game just because you wanted it to be a different genre! Even though it has a few minor flaws it's still arguably the best 3D Zelda-style game to date that isn't actually Zelda, and should be commended for the many things it did right.
On this i can agree they should have marketed the games better but i guess Microsoft was just banking on the fact that Rare fans would come rushing to their platform from Nintendo with little effort. This did not happen. How much this is attributed to the quality of the games is debatable.
I would not call anything related to Kameo as being rushed. That game was in development for ages and at some point you cant delay a game any further and just have to cut your losses and ship the game already, so the team can move on. PDZ sold like crap as far as i remember so not really surprised they did not end up making more. M rated games were abundant on Xbox so them making more lighthearted games was for the best and seemed to fit Rare much better anyway. As for Banjo based on the interviews everything point to that Rare made that decision on their own half way during development. They saw how the ports of the N64 games performed and made the decision based on that as well as just wanting to do something different. There were not many platforming fans on Xbox and the market certainly had changed for that genre. I can see where they were coming from at the very least.
It is impossible to know. As far as im concerned Microsoft came the closest with the Kinect but other than that i cant really be mad at any party involved in regards to current Rare.
Nintendo made a calculated business decision.
Microsoft made a calculated business decision.
Rare for the most part remained unchanged for a good while and just continued making games. They were on a different platform but Microsoft seemed to have left them alone for a good while. It is really not that hard to see why things ended up they way they did for Rare and Sea of Thieves and Rare Replay seem to suggest that they are mostly back on track. It is just up to Rare fans at this point to chose whether or not to support them.
TannerDemoz
Member
And it looked phenomonal at the time! Great game.
Gurgelhals
Member
It's impossible to say what would have happened to Rare if Nintendo had bought them outright, but it's pretty clear that the studio's spiralling into irrelevance has mostly been down to Microsoft's inconsistent and aimless style of managing its game development studios.
I mean, Microsoft originally bought the company and were willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it, because, early in the Xbox's lifecycle, they believed that success in the console market came with iconic mascot characters. So they tried that for a time (remember Blinx?) and saw the Rare acquisition as a slam dunk, because it was the kind of studio that could deliver these mascot focused games.
But then it turned out that the PS2/GCN/XB generation would be the first console generation where mascot's didn't really have a major impact anymore (I mean, the "mascot" of the Xbox ultimately turned out to be a faceless green suit of space marine armor with not personality whatsoever). Also, with Halo and Xbox Live Microsoft was instead appealing mainly to the dudebro demographics, which didn't care for cartoony platformers.
So? Major U-turn in strategy (which is also what almost killed Psychonauts, by the way another cartoony and mascot-y platformer that was originally an XBox exclusive) and suddenly Rare doesn't really fit into MS's larger scheme of things anymore. Cue a few years in limbo until they finally emerge for the launch of the Xbox 360 with Kameo and Perfect Dark Zero, but neither title really seems to fit the target demographics of the Xbox brand, so the studio remains the awkward stepchild of MS's internal development teams: still there because the company paid 300 mio. bucks for it, but with no clear direction or purpose.
And then the Stampers leave, Xbox Live Avatars and Kinect happen and, all of a sudden, MS sees a purpose for the studio again. Only problem: It's a shit purpose and we all know how things went from there...
I mean, Microsoft originally bought the company and were willing to pay a ridiculous amount of money for it, because, early in the Xbox's lifecycle, they believed that success in the console market came with iconic mascot characters. So they tried that for a time (remember Blinx?) and saw the Rare acquisition as a slam dunk, because it was the kind of studio that could deliver these mascot focused games.
But then it turned out that the PS2/GCN/XB generation would be the first console generation where mascot's didn't really have a major impact anymore (I mean, the "mascot" of the Xbox ultimately turned out to be a faceless green suit of space marine armor with not personality whatsoever). Also, with Halo and Xbox Live Microsoft was instead appealing mainly to the dudebro demographics, which didn't care for cartoony platformers.
So? Major U-turn in strategy (which is also what almost killed Psychonauts, by the way another cartoony and mascot-y platformer that was originally an XBox exclusive) and suddenly Rare doesn't really fit into MS's larger scheme of things anymore. Cue a few years in limbo until they finally emerge for the launch of the Xbox 360 with Kameo and Perfect Dark Zero, but neither title really seems to fit the target demographics of the Xbox brand, so the studio remains the awkward stepchild of MS's internal development teams: still there because the company paid 300 mio. bucks for it, but with no clear direction or purpose.
And then the Stampers leave, Xbox Live Avatars and Kinect happen and, all of a sudden, MS sees a purpose for the studio again. Only problem: It's a shit purpose and we all know how things went from there...
Cygnus X-1
Member
It's impossible to tell now. However, while people go, they also come. The prestige of the company was high and while talent leaves, talent also is attracted to companys with high reputation.
I believe it turned out to be like this because on one hand Tim and Chris Stamper wanted to cash after decades of work - can't blame them.
On the other hand, Nintendo weighted the possibility to get 400 millions cash in one go vs. the long term investment and resourcing of Rare's IPs and, well, we know what had more weight at that time. I believe part of the issue was that many of the most successful Rare's games were made with...Nintendo's IPs and therefore selling Rare meant anyway keeping roughly half of all relevant IPs. I'm convinced this also weighted quite a lot.
The disappointment at the time came from what was missing compared to what we thought we were getting. It could and should have been so much better, but in the end you could almost feel the lack of impetus to complete the game, given the turmoil within Rare as it was being developed.
I loved the game, but it felt rushed and incomplete.
Also, Okami is the best non-Zelda Zelda-style game
daTRUballin
Member
When I say Kameo and PDZ were rushed, I mean that Rare were basically forced to rush the final Xbox 360 versions of these games to meet launch. Yes, they were in development for a very long time, but you have to remember these games jumped between consoles twice. The final versions of the games were basically rushed to meet the 360 release date and they only had a year of development to do that, I think.
And as someone has already pointed out above, PDZ was a million seller, so you can't say they stopped making PD games because of disappointing sales.
And idk what you're talking about with Nuts & Bolts and the Banjo ports as the BK port came out around the same time as N&B and the Tooie port came out in 2009. There's no way they decided on N&B's direction based on the ports considering the ports came out around the same time or later! If anything, it was Conker: Live & Reloaded that scared MS and Rare from making a 3D platformer. I remember reading somewhere that it was because of Conker's sales that N&B turned out the way it did, but don't quote me on it.
Yeah. Avatars on Xbox were made by them. I believe 360 bc on X1 also has to do with them (as seen in Rare Replay)
Rare worked internally on sequels for Kameo and Perfect Dark after 2005, both projects were cancelled by Microsoft.
My guess is that Microsoft gave free reign to Rare just after the acquisition due to Rare excellent reputation at the time to produce hit games.
When Rare's Xbox and Xbox 360 games released between 2002 and 2008 met with disappointing sales, Microsoft management began to cancel every project that they didn't consider could sell well (why fund Perfect Dark Core when MS already publish the highly successful Halo series and Perfect Dark Zero sales performance disappointed?).
To me Microsoft's mistake was at the beginning letting Rare doing what they do without giving them a straight direction to follow to adapt to the Xbox ecosystem.
Rare's management mistake was to think that just keeping producing the games Rare was famous for at the time would bring success on Xbox instead they should have focus on finding IPs (new or old) that would be their "bread and butter" on Xbox platforms.
After the relationship soured around 2007-2008 Microsoft put Rare under scrutiny.
Look at the evolution of Naughty Dog software output after they severed the ties with Universal/Vivendi and tied with Sony (Crash Bandiccot -> Jak and Daxter -> Uncharted), ND followed the natural evolution of the industry to keep itself relevant after the big success of Crash Bandicoot and now have enough free credit at Sony to fund new ambitious IP like The last of us.
I think you are under the impression that selling 1 million units will automatically met a company expectation which isn't true.
What we know for sure is that after PDZ Rare worked on another PD sequel which was canned by Microsoft (which wouldn't happened if PDZ sales were strong).
EXCLUSIVE: Can Nintendo Survive Without Rare?
It's been 15 years after Rare was acquired by Microsoft, we already know the answer.
Yes i know it switched platforms but still it was in development for a long time and they really needed to move on.
Yeah but still Xbox had a ton of M rated games at that point and a major FPS franchise. It makes sense to focus Rare on franchises that were not like anything Microsoft had at that point. Plus as far as i remember many were disappointed in PDZ, for all we know Rare could of just have felt like they were done with the I.P for the time being.
Oh my mistake. I could have sworn those released earlier but that era tends to be a bit of a blur for me. I should have checked. That being said everything else remains the same, the relevance of the genre changed, the install base on Xbox was different and Rare probably just decided to try something different. Because of this had they just made Banjo Threeie or whatever the game might not have sold that much better and the franchise in all likelihood would have been put on ice regardless. Based on the circumstances this was from Rares point of view probably the best course of action they could make at the time. I doubt it was only based on how Conker did but it was certainly a factor.
Iced Arcade
Member
People only see what they want to see. Rare had/has a lot of internal workings within MS that are apart from the general core gaming. they designed the whole avatar system, helped design UI when the 360 revamped itself, had a big part in kinects development etc
Is a shame they are sitting on a large body of IP's but like other studios... they might want to work on something new.
Is a shame they are sitting on a large body of IP's but like other studios... they might want to work on something new.
It's obvious you are biased against Nintendo.
If Nintendo wanted to increase the output through M&A they could have bought other studios other than Rare.
You fail to argument why Nintendo should have spent at least $100M to acquire the remaining 51% of Rare stocks ($100M is what allegedly Nintendo received from the sales so it's fair to assume that's roughly what Stamper brothers asked to Nintendo).
To give a point of reference Nintendo bought Retro Studios for $1M, 80% of Monolith Soft for $630K.
For Nintendo to consider it would be a worthy investement spending a huge sum like $100M, Nintendo should have:
1) believed only Rare could have managed a key franchise like Donkey Kong.
2) believed in Rare's IPs (mainly Banjo-Kazooie and Perfect Dark the rest didn't sell that well or were out of fashion) prolonged success.
3) believed in Rare ability to create new hits.
And that all the three points were worth $100M + the money needed to run the company monthly.
I have already my own answers for the above points.
Bjoern the Smexy
Member
Oh wow. Hit you pretty hard, didn't it?
I was far from the only one in that regard, haha.
This very much so.
Majukun
Member
the build things mechanic was good, but the game was badly designed around that and it wasn't even really a platformer
I would like another attempt with the build vehicles mechanic.. just please live the banjo franchise alone if you are Not gonna do a platform er... you don't make a tps and call it gran turismo
half a moon
Banned
Rare died 15 years ago.
Bits N Pieces
Member
That didn't stop Minecraft from appearing on switch.Well, they're kind of owned by Microsoft dude. They can't just port their games to non-Xbox platforms.
Oh wow. Hit you pretty hard, didn't it?
In fact they should even port sea of thieves while they're at it.
I'm not "biased against Nintendo". I used to be a huge Nintendo fanboy until a series of strategic mistakes showed me that Nintendo is only human, and more than that, they're not my friend. The world doesn't need someone like me cheering for Nintendo to be handed the chance to rule that they have repeatedly been unfairly denied. I still enjoy Nintendo games though, and I find some of Nintendo's mistakes strategically fascinating.
That's not true. Iwata has said so himself, during some of the many times Nintendo experienced game shortages. Nintendo can't just throw around it's large reserves of money and buy developers, because those developers could flee, leaving Nintendo with an empty shell. How many studios out there had a good fit with Nintendo's audience, and a good relationship with Nintendo, and were willing to be purchased? Not many. And when the most obvious one was standing on Nintendo's doorstep asking for exactly that, Nintendo turned them away.
The $1 million Nintendo paid for Retro Studios was reportedly a "token amount" after Nintendo had sunk a large amount of money into the disastrous startup, and they needed to sink a lot more in to whip the company into shape, and the company literally would've collapsed without Nintendo's direct intervention. Nintendo could have purchased Retro for the token amount of one dollar, but at that point Jeff Spangenberg could've refused to sell and simply allowed the company to die. One million dollars was what Nintendo decided it took to politely ask Spangenberg to admit defeat and step out of the way and allow Nintendo to take the reins. It's not an indication that all you need to do to purchase your own Metroid Prime-caliber development studio is have one million dollars.
The Monolith deal was mixed up with a failed attempt at Nintendo casually purchasing Bandai (who it turned out, did not wish to be purchased by Nintendo).
Fact is, The Stampers offered Rare up to Nintendo for a fair market value, and then when Nintendo declined, Microsoft bid up the price because they saw the importance of Rare to Nintendo they didn't want Nintendo to realize their mistake and change their minds. I don't know where people get the idea that Rare was somehow overpriced (sour grapes, I guess). Rare was the right product for Nintendo to purchase, and they were fairly priced.
Nintendo didn't buy Rare because Nintendo is cheap. Money goes into Nintendo, and money rarely goes out of Nintendo. That "financial conservatism" has allowed them to survive many of their massive blunders over the years, but that financial conservatism has also been the cause of many of their massive blunders over the years.
You Pay This Much
Member
Sounds like something that would have been right up my alley. What a shame.