Support NeoGAF

[Valjean Lafitte]

I know there's been several Rare threads over the last few days but I thought this might be discussion worthy enough to warrant its own topic. In the thread Former Rare dev: There Was A 'Severe Culture Clash' Between Microsoft And Rare, one poster pointed out that one of the reasons Nintendo refused to buy Rare when the Stamper Brothers were looking to sell their shares was that they were unhappy with their productivity. To me, this makes no sense whatsoever and if true it places Nintendo at the heights of hypocrisy.

Putting aside their SNES games and numerous handheld titles, let's just examine Rare's N64 output from 1996-2001, shall we?


1996

• 
  Killer Instinct Gold

1997

• 
  Blast Corps

• Goldeneye 007

• Diddy Kong Racing

1998

• Banjo-Kazooie

1999

• Jet Force Gemini

• Donkey Kong 64

2000

• Perfect Dark

• Mickey's Speedway USA

• Banjo-Tooie

2001

• Conker's Bad Fur Day

Then came Star Fox Adventures in 2002, which no doubt could have been released sooner had Shigeru Miyamoto not pressured Rare to retool Dinosaur Planet as a Star Fox game. Now, bearing in mind that the above list omits the seven Game Boy titles they released during that period, and the fact that they were able to release a whopping four 3D platformers in a period of not even three years, I ask this: can anyone honestly say that Rare ever rested on their laurels during their time as a second-party developer for Nintendo?

 

[Linkhero1]

I thought it was the fact the Stamper Brothers wanted to sell the other half of Rare and Nintendo didn't want to share them?

 

[TheRealTalker]

bad symptoms of a break up/hang over

 

[Savitar]

Pretty sure their productivity has been pointed to as one of the reasons why Nintendo decided to let them go.

 

[MercuryLS]

How is that poor productivity? That's a lot of titles from one studio in one gen.

 

[ksamedi]

I think MS overpayed, and Nintendo knew that, that is why they let them go.

 

[Grief.exe]

Averages out to multiple games per year for one studio.

Seems very productive to me, especially considering the quality of the work.

 

[pa22word]

I still think Nintendo not picking up Rare in their heyday was a big mistake on Nintendo's part. Regardless of their post Ninty output, just imagine if Nintendo would have held onto the studio and cultivated it the same way they are with Retro at the moment (reminder: no one listed with a design credit on Metroid Prime still works at Retro Studios currently). They'd definitely be sitting in a better spot now, having two western studios producing content for them simultaneously.

 

[FyreWulff]

It was given as the public facing excuse to the shareholders, but it was really and ultimately the fact that Microsoft had 51% of the vote and Nintendo had 49%.

Nintendo wasn't going to subsidize Xbox exclusive games, and Microsoft was willing to pay an absurd amount of money for a developer that wasn't even keeping some of it's highest selling IP because it belonged to Nintendo

 

[Jarmel]

I don't think some of the previous posters read the OP.

 

[Cwarrior]

An average of 2 to 3 console games a year not including handhelds sounds like excellent productivity especially since said game were of high quality.

Most quality games studios only put out 1 game every two years.

 

[BD1]

I thought it was the fact the Stamper Brothers wanted to sell the other half of Rare and Nintendo didn't want to share them?

Not share them; Nintendo didn't feel the investment of the other 49% was worth it. The Stampers gave Nintendo the first option to buy them out, but they chose to cash out also.

It makes me sad from a nostalgic point of view, but I think it was the right decision. Rare had notorious dev cycles at the dawn of an era where development costs were rapidly going up, AND the two leaders of the company were on their way out.

(EDIT) I do wish Nintendo had picked up some of the IP (Banjo/Conker) but at the time, Microsoft viewed those as strategic and I'm sure they wouldn't have paid if they weren't part of the package.

 

[Cipherr]

Adding the 7 gameboy titles you mentioned, at first glance that SEEMS like acceptable output for a generation when working with the N64. But of course thats not a constant, I don't know how big Rare was at that time....

Maybe they had a crapton of staff, in which case that may be low production... But still, I could forgive that considering how defining GE/PD/DKR were, and how good Blast Corps, Conker and the two B&K games were.

 

[MoeB]

I feel like there's a need for a Rare subsection on here.

 

[jtb]

I agree. the argument makes no sense; they were as productive as any studio, if not more productive. churning out huge hit after huge hit too.

 

[Linkhero1]

Not share them; Nintendo didn't feel the investment of the other 49% was worth it. The Stampers gave Nintendo the first option to buy them out, but they chose to cash out also.

It makes me sad from a nostalgic point of view, but I think it was the right decision. Rare had notorious dev cycles at the dawn of an era where development costs were rapidly going up, AND the two leaders of the company were on their way out.

Ah. Sort of sucks that Nintendo let go of Rare's ips like that. I mean the talent were leaving, but they still had quite a bit of people when MS took over. Would have been nice if Nintendo secured an IP or two. I mean, MS sure ain't doing shit with them.

 

[John Dunbar]

jet force gemini was such a cool game.

 

[injurai]

How is that poor productivity? That's a lot of titles from one studio in one gen.

yeah, I'm not making the connection...

 

[pa22word]

yeah, I'm not making the connection...

Did you read the OP? That's the entire point of the thread. Christ sake gaf...

 

[Square2015]

Remember this?
It gives a good idea of their (prior) success (data as of Jan 2007)

Blue=SNES
Yellow=GB
Green=N64
Pink=GBC
Purple=GC
Aquamarine=GBA
Lime green=XB/360
Silver=DS

 

[A Black Falcon]

The problem was that Rare's output was slowing down. They'd been great in the N64 generation, releasing 11 games in 4 1/2 years. That's quite good production, given their size. Some major Nintendo first parties, such as HAL and Intelligent Systems, did much, MUCH worse, and Rare's games were key to carrying the N64 in the West, after EAD itself had issues (think of how Rare released four major, high quality 3d platformers during a period where EAD managed to release zero!). After that, however, Rare's releases slowed to a crawl.

I mean, after Conker in March 2001, this was all they managed to do for major console titles...

2002 - SF Adventures
2003 - Grabbed by the Ghoulies
2004 - [none]
2005 - Conker: Live and Reloaded (remake), Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero
2006 - Viva Pinata
2007 - [none]
2008 - Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
2009 - [none]
2010 and beyond - Kinect Sports series and Avatars.

Rare did still make a few good games after 2001, including Kameo, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts, and Viva Pinata, but their production had slowed down badly, and I think that Nintendo did notice that in 2001-2002. Even in the N64 days they had some issues; Conker for the N64 was in development for at least 4 years for instance. But at least then they had other teams filling in the gaps. But after the 6th gen started, they didn't have as much of that anymore, and their production slowed down.

I do think that Nintendo made a mistake in letting them go -- I think the Gamecube would be a better console with Kameo, PDZ (I guess), and maybe some platformer with the GbtG theme (because they turned it into a beat 'em up in part because of the platform change, maybe?) -- but it IS true that Rare's production was slowing down. Still though, their few games would have been a big help to the GC when they finally released, and would have sold much, MUCH better than they did on the Xbox and the 360, thats for sure.

 

[SporeCrawler]

maybe

but if you look at the game they have put out on N64 those were the high sellers of the system aside of the usual nintendo EAD first party stuff.

nintendo received a lot of money but the world semi lost a precious studio

 

[Axispowers]

Remember this?
It gives a good idea of their (prior) success (data goes up to 2006)

Oh wow. Had no idea their sales were that poor.

 

[zero shift]

Remember this?
It gives a good idea of their (prior) success (data goes up to 2006)

Blue=SNES
Yellow=GB
Green=N64
Pink=GBC
Purple=GC
Aquamarine=GBA
Lime green=XB/360
Silver=DS

Goddamn. Those Xbox numbers are painful. Never knew that Bad Fur Day sold so much though. I was under the impression that it was Grab By the Ghoulies level of bomba.

 

[Porcile]

The problem was that Rare's output was slowing down. They'd been great in the N64 generation, releasing 11 games in 4 1/2 years. That's quite good production, given their size. Some major Nintendo first parties, such as HAL and Intelligent Systems, did much, MUCH worse, and Rare's games were key to carrying the N64 in the West, after EAD itself had issues (think of how Rare released four major, high quality 3d platformers during a period where EAD managed to release zero!). After that, however, Rare's releases slowed to a crawl.

I mean, after Conker in March 2001, this was all they managed to do for major console titles...

2002 - SF Adventures
2003 - Grabbed by the Ghoulies
2004 - [none]
2005 - Conker: Live and Reloaded (remake), Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero
2006 - Viva Pinata
2007 - [none]
2008 - Viva Pinata: Trouble in Paradise, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts
2009 - [none]
2010 and beyond - Kinect Sports series and Avatars.
.

It's hard to verify how productive they would've of been if they'd stuck with Nintendo.

From what I vaguely know, they were working on Donkey Kong Racing, Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo for Gamecube before the buy out? All of which could of feasibly been released for GC. Obviously, DKR got completely canned (or scaled down dramatically to Banjo Pilot?), development for Grabbed by the Ghoulies started properly, while PDZ and Kameo were reworked for 360. Who knows what internal stuff was going on at the time.

 

[Valjean Lafitte]

It was given as the public facing excuse to the shareholders, but it was really and ultimately the fact that Microsoft had 51% of the vote and Nintendo had 49%.

Nintendo wasn't going to subsidize Xbox exclusive games, and Microsoft was willing to pay an absurd amount of money for a developer that wasn't even keeping some of it's highest selling IP because it belonged to Nintendo

That's my take on it as well. The bit about their productivity being poor was just an excuse to give the shareholders: there's no way Nintendo can look at such a small studio being able to release 4 3D platformers in under 3 years as being unproductive. Nintendo can't even manage that.

The problem was that Rare's output was slowing down. They'd been great in the N64 generation, releasing 11 games in 4 1/2 years. That's quite good production, given their size. Some major Nintendo first parties, such as HAL and Intelligent Systems, did much, MUCH worse, and Rare's games were key to carrying the N64 in the West, after EAD itself had issues (think of how Rare released four major, high quality 3d platformers during a period where EAD managed to release zero!). After that, however, Rare's releases slowed to a crawl.

That's all true, but Nintendo didn't even give Rare a chance to pick up the pace post 2000. They forced them to retool Dinosaur Planet, which must have set the release date back considerably, and then Kameo had to be pushed back because of the Microsoft deal and Donkey Kong Racing, one of the first Gamecube titles ever shown, was outright cancelled. I just think its hypocritical for Nintendo to call Rare's later productivity "slow" when their own studios like Intelligent Systems and HAL can't meet the pace Rare had set.

And about that graph: I thinks it only fair if its compared against a graph of Nintendo's own first-party output during the same years.

 

[injurai]

Did you read the OP? That's the entire point of the thread. Christ sake gaf...

I did. It wasn't clear though that historically they we're let go under the pretense of lack of productivity. I thought that was a new view point being discussed.

Yeesh, it was a simple bit of confusion.

 

[Rodney McKay]

Remember this?
It gives a good idea of their (prior) success (data goes up to 2006)

Hahaha, it's killing me that a port of Diddy Kong Racing for the DS was Rare's highest selling game since Microsoft bought them (at the time of this graph). (Even with the stupid DS exclusive shit they added, the actual racing game is still awesome)

Had no idea Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo did so poorly. I thought they were some of the biggest launch titles for the 360.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

They're certainly not bothered by Retro's productivity. It takes them 3 years to make a DKC sequel. Rare made the whole trilogy in that timeframe, AND both Killer Instincts. And they were all very successful products.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

Nintendo wasn't concerned with Rare's output at the beginning of the gen. Their output dropped near the end, and their returns on games weren't worth the long development times. Conker in particular was a massive bomb relative to how long it took to make.

 

[giapel]

Nintendo didn't let them go. They sold them at a very high price. It can also be argued that at that point in time Rare was still a very talented studio. There's no real signs that the decline started before the deal.

 

[BD1]

They're certainly not bothered by Retro's productivity. It takes them 3 years to make a DKC sequel. Rare made the whole trilogy in that timeframe, AND both Killer Instincts. And they were all very successful products.

Surely you realize the very different circumstances in that example?

 

[Valjean Lafitte]

They're certainly not bothered by Retro's productivity. It takes them 3 years to make a DKC sequel. Rare made the whole trilogy in that timeframe, AND both Killer Instincts. And they were all very successful products.

This this THIS. Every time someone says Retro Studios is comparable or even better than the Rare of old I want to cringe. They made a trilogy of successful Donkey Kong games in the same time frame that it has taken Retro Studios to make one sequel to said trilogy.

Surely you realize the very different circumstances in that example?

Enlighten me.

 

[w1gglyjones]

Surely you realize the very different circumstances in that example?

I'm sure he does, but surely you realize how his comparison between Rare DKC and Retro DKC is amusing.

 

[Giolon]

Damn look at that list of titles...I'm getting all misty-eyed just thinking about them.

Jet Force Gemini wasn't the best game but I had a lot of fun with it at the time.

 

[Xellos]

Part of the reason Rare's output slowed after the sale has to be from switching between Cube -> Xbox -> 360 development (as was the case for Kameo and PDZ) and the changes in management from Nintendo -> MS. If they had stayed with Nintendo I think they would have released more games, especially for Wii since they wouldn't have had to make the HD transition and would have been able to re-use most of their work from Gamecube.

Given the money involved i can't really blame Nintendo for selling/not buying out the Stampers, but as a Nintendo/Rare fan I'm still disappointed that they split. Rare was awesome on NES, SNES, and N64 but failed to find an audience on Xbox and 360, and now they're (more or less) gone. Also we're never getting VC releases of their N64 games, which really sucks.

 

[IdreamofHIME]

Remember this?
It gives a good idea of their (prior) success (data as of Jan 2007)

Blue=SNES
Yellow=GB
Green=N64
Pink=GBC
Purple=GC
Aquamarine=GBA
Lime green=XB/360
Silver=DS

The horror story there is Blast Corps' numbers.

 

[nesboy43]

The biggest factor was that Rare wanted a company to buy them outright, Nintendo was a major shareholder and Rare asked them to buy the remaining 50% first and they refused. Next Activison and Microsoft gave generous offers, Activision's fell through so they chose Microsoft. The owners wanted the company to be wholly owned. I think Nintendo was happy with the previous relationship and would have liked to be a major shareholder, just not to fully own it.

If you look at things like Dinosaur Planet and Conker's Twelve Tails, it shows that rare did spend a lot of time on their games to try and make them the best quality, but major revisions did end up happening as well, so the final product took a long time to come out in some cases. However, I don't think Nintendo cared cause look at the sales of games like Goldeneye that came out years after the movie was released. Nintendo gave them a lot of freedom.

 

[Seik]

Hahaha, it's killing me that a port of Diddy Kong Racing for the DS was Rare's highest selling game since Microsoft bought them (at the time of this graph). (Even with the stupid DS exclusive shit they added, the actual racing game is still awesome)

Had no idea Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo did so poorly. I thought they were some of the biggest launch titles for the 360.

I was wondering why DKR was mentioned down there. I didn't know it was Rare that developed it for the DS, I'm surprised Microsoft allowed this.

...On top of that it beats every other releases since they're with MS, ouch.

The horror story there is Blast Corps' numbers.

True that. D:

 

[schwabdizzle]

I thought Blast Corps for N64 was the fucking shit.

 

[SporeCrawler]

jet force gemini was such a cool game.

Yup in a weird way it was the genesis of the modern 3rd person console shooter

 

[Cutebrute]

This this THIS. Every time someone says Retro Studios is comparable or even better than the Rare of old I want to cringe. They made a trilogy of successful Donkey Kong games in the same time frame that it has taken Retro Studios to make one sequel to said trilogy.

You are ignoring the fact that game development was much more complex and time consuming by the time Retro started on the Prime trilogy. Retro made amazing games in a very reasonable time span (during the Prime years).

And yes, I have been thinking lately that having Kameo and PDZ or PD2 during the early years of the Wii would have done wonders for Nintendo, not to mention how great a Banjo-Threeie Wii game would have been.

EDIT: Sorry I thought you were referring to Retro's Metroid trilogy there. My bad.

 

[DopeyFish]

I was wondering why DKR was mentioned down there. I didn't know it was Rare that developed it for the DS, I'm surprised Microsoft allowed this.

...On top of that it beats every other releases since they're with MS, ouch.



True that. D:

Except kinect sports, that sold over a million, no? Or rather... It was multi million

KI will sell tons too...

 

[Oersted]

They're certainly not bothered by Retro's productivity. It takes them 3 years to make a DKC sequel. Rare made the whole trilogy in that timeframe, AND both Killer Instincts. And they were all very successful products.

That comparison doesn´t work so well. Donkey Kong triology was on SNES only.The new ones are on two different consoles. And back in the day, development was easier. Retro on the other hand pulled off Metroid Prime 1/2 and DK.

 

[BD1]

This this THIS. Every time someone says Retro Studios is comparable or even better than the Rare of old I want to cringe. They made a trilogy of successful Donkey Kong games in the same time frame that it has taken Retro Studios to make one sequel to said trilogy.



Enlighten me.

I'm not making any comparisons between Rare and Retro. Both were/are great studios for Nintendo.

However, the original Donkey Kong Country games were all developed on the same platform in a much less resource demanding development environment. The Retro versions are on two different platforms, cross generational and created in an era where development is much more resource intensive.

It's not comparable.

 

[SporeCrawler]

Nintendo didn't let them go. They sold them at a very high price. It can also be argued that at that point in time Rare was still a very talented studio. There's no real signs that the decline started before the deal.

When they let them go rare had put out star fox adventure which is, despite some justified criticism a slid game with amazing production values and had kameo and donkey kong racing in the pipeline

You are ignoring the fact that game development was much more complex and time consuming by the time Retro started on the Prime trilogy. Retro made amazing games in a very reasonable time span (during the Prime years).

And yes, I have been thinking lately that having Kameo and PDZ or PD2 during the early years of the Wii would have done wonders for Nintendo, not to mention how great a Banjo-Threeie Wii game would have been.

Well to be fair they did wonders without rare saleswise. However having rare developing banjo, pdz etc. For wiiu would have been great.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

Rare was sold when they had Star Fox Adventures, Donkey Kong Racing, Diddy Kong Pilot, Donkey Kong: Coconut Crackers, Grabbed by the Ghoulies, Kameo, and Perfect Dark Zero (a version that actually looked sort of appealing!) all in development at once.

The killer is that pretty much all of those games were in playable form or were very very close. Rare being sold during that post-BFD dry spell is exactly WHY the buyout was so devastating - because there was an unprecedentedly-gigantic tidal wave of awesome stuff on the horizon. (And unlike with Microsoft, it all would have sold well too.)

(Even Ghoulies...maybe.)

 

[StreetsAhead]

KI will sell tons too...

Killer Instinct?

Not made by Rare.

 

[Seik]

Except kinect sports, that sold over a million, no? Or rather... It was multi million

KI will sell tons too...

My bad, I was talking about that chart up there, Kinect Sport isn't even on it, it could help a bit for the numbers on MS side that's for sure.

The new KI isn't made by RARE btw.

 

[Porcile]

I always found it ironic that post-buyout, my favourite new Rare releases weren't even on Xbox. I had more fun with the games they released for Nintendo handheld consoles with GBA and DS. It was a strange upside to the whole deal.