-
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.
Was Rare's poor productivity a deciding factor in Nintendo choosing to let them go?
- Thread starter Valjean Lafitte
- Start date
APZonerunner
Member
This is why it happened, in truth. The Stamper Brothers wanted out of video games period and wanted to sell up. They went to Nintendo and said this, and their asking price was far more than Nintendo was willing to pay.
Nintendo only owned 49% of Rare, so if one buyer was willing to purchase the Stamper 51%, their status as a (generally) Nintendo-only developer would be threatened. Because Nintendo wasn't willing to pay the price the Stampers asked for, Nintendo decided to sell their half as well.
Microsoft bought the lot - 49% off Nintendo and 51% off the Stampers. EA and Activision were both mooted for it at the time as well, initially when the Stampers were just selling 51% - but in that situation those publishers probably would've wanted games on more than Nintendo systems, and it would've been a fight with Nintendo still owning just under half - so that's why Nintendo sold.
I think had the Stampers not wanted to move on, Rare would still be with Nintendo to this day.
Blast Corps was amazing and fun. It was like the 2nd game I bought on the N64.
A Black Falcon
Member
Didn't Nintendo have an opportunity to buy that 51% before it was sold to MS, though, and they passed?
I agree with you, Nintendo was part of the problem, and cancelling Donkey Kong Racing and moving Kameo and PDZ to Xbox and then 360 certainly pushed back development a lot. I highly doubt that Kameo and PDZ would have taken until late 2005 as Gamecube games. GbtG... I don't know where it was when Rare was sold, but it certainly had to at least have been started, though it hadn't been announced of course. I know I've heard it was initially a 3d platformer, but after the sale to MS they unfortunately changed genres, and it didn't work out well. Between SF Adventures, GbtG, and Conker Xbox (fine game, but it's just a remake) Rare definitely had a very hard 6th gen. But, as you say, if Kameo, PDZ, and Donkey Kong Racing had all been released that gen too, it would look better. PDZ's a flawed game, but still, it's probably not quite as badly flawed as GbtG anyway, and maybe also SF Adventures... and I like Kameo. Should be a longer game considering how long it took to make, but it's good.
Anyway, ideally, I think that Dinosaur Planet should have been left as an N64 game. In the US Nintendo gave up on the N64 (ie, stopped releasing first-party games for it) about six months before the Gamecube released, and I think that that was a mistake. They should have released a few more games for it, in the US particularly, including Dinosaur Planet, Sin & Punishment, and Animal Forest (Crossing).
Past that, don't sell Rare of course. Deal with the fact that they were having a tough generation transition, just like HAL, EAD, and Intelligent Systems all had the previous generation. I think it'd have been worth it... Rare would have released games a bit more quickly (no need to can a game and platform-shift so many games), and their game sales would certainly have been better. Just look at that chart, at how much better on average their Nintendo-console games sold than their MS ones. Their sales would not have collapsed nearly as badly. It's too bad that Nintendo left them go instead. It fit with the theme of the generation, which was that Nintendo was abandoning its close Western while building up ties to a bunch of Japanese developers instead, but they should have done both, not one instead of the other.
Oh, and no, Banjo Pilot was a different game; Rare's handheld and console teams were not the same. The game did get downscaled, as it started out in polygonal 3d and then they downgraded it to Mode 7 style, but I don't think it was ever meant to be a version of Donkey Kong Racing...
I'm not as confident as you that all of those games would have come out without delays -- I'm sure at least some would have seen lengthy delays before release -- but yeah, it was bad timing.
If Ghoulies had ended up as a 3d platformer with both of the characters playable, as it was originally meant to be, yes, I think it could have been fine. I mean, the graphics are great, the art design is great, it's the genre and gameplay that's the problem... and if Rare had instead stuck to something they knew well, it could have been just fine.
And yeah, the GC version of PDZ did look better than the 360 game ended up being, didn't it.
Hero of Legend
Member
I'm considering an idea for a thread all about Rare's planned GC and GBA line-up, and see if we can pull together every little detail possible about what could have been, because there's quite a bit.
RawkHawk2010
Member
w1gglyjones
Member
Isn't it free to play?
Doesn't really seem like such a bad number to me. Not every game needed to sell millions back then
No, Nintendo never gave a shit about that. 'It's ready when it's ready' is the company mantra.
They sold up because the quality of their games was declining and the best staff had left. Nintendo wasnt going to fight Microsoft over a studio on the wane.
They sold up because the quality of their games was declining and the best staff had left. Nintendo wasnt going to fight Microsoft over a studio on the wane.
Anticitizen One
Banned
it was originally a gamecube game then an xbox game and finally released for 360
schwabdizzle
Banned
I am surprised we have not seen a game that is similar to it.
I do question how much of that is on Rare and not Nintendo. The N64 had some very bad droughts and this is what caused people to start looking at the PlayStation 1 since there were more games. Then the PS2 launched before the GameCube. It could be argued the customer base just decreased over time and Rare was the victim of that but the actual cause was Nintendo and the decisions they made with the N64. Then they get cut loose sadly instead of Nintendo trying to fix the real problem.
Demo is F2P meaning anyone who plays the demo could buy only a little portion if they want to
You can buy the full game, in some form or another.
F2P is a powerful business model.
w1gglyjones
Member
There is actually a full game that you can download or buy physically? Or do you mean that the game is free to play, and you can buy the full game by purchasing all the various items and characters and other content, etc..?
It currently does not have a full roster announced though...
RawkHawk2010
Member
Wait, can I get a source on this? As someone who often feels like one of the only dozen or so Ghoulies fans in existence, you've got me curious.
as far as i know you essentially buy everything the game offers for a reduced price in one package (like a retail game) or you buy what you want in bits and pieces if that suits your fancy
no physical edition
they're announcing the roster slowly. next reveal is in 10 days
w1gglyjones
Member
ahh, I got it. seems like a confusing way to go about it, but okay. thanks. back to the thread!
Nintendo... all you had to do was to buy the other half of rareware and restructure it if necesary. Yeah, i know, "only". It seems that nintendo is good at doing that. Buying a studio, or having a really close relation with them, restructure it or whatever if necesary, "educate" them on how to make games like Nintendo wants, send some people there and actively supervise the games. I still cant understand how, what nintendo did, was considered a good move in the long run.
Rareware was like nintendo 2!!! Every time that i think about it... they made soooo many awesome games. I cant explain with words how good they were. If the most important thing for nintendo is quality nintendo games, how could they sell them? they already have that so... why? just for having a lot of money but not having those games anymore? And now we hear nintendo taking about expanding their teams for making more games... Nintendo needed even more games in the n64 era and they still sold rareware, the ones who did many of those games. They ended with what, money? i want games.
I could be playing banjo 5 right now... and a lot more things. But what we have? nothing. Nintendo can have all the money that they want, i just want games.
Selling rareware was bad for us, i dont know about them.
Rareware was like nintendo 2!!! Every time that i think about it... they made soooo many awesome games. I cant explain with words how good they were. If the most important thing for nintendo is quality nintendo games, how could they sell them? they already have that so... why? just for having a lot of money but not having those games anymore? And now we hear nintendo taking about expanding their teams for making more games... Nintendo needed even more games in the n64 era and they still sold rareware, the ones who did many of those games. They ended with what, money? i want games.
I could be playing banjo 5 right now... and a lot more things. But what we have? nothing. Nintendo can have all the money that they want, i just want games.
Selling rareware was bad for us, i dont know about them.
helipilot22
Neo Member
Just wanted to say that PDZ had some hidden depth to the game play on the perfect dark difficulty setting, it would be well below par now of course, but back then I thought personally, that it received a less than fair score.
The level that had those two brothers at the start to kill on a massive rig in the sea, go back and replay it. one objective can be done differently, quite stealthy as perfect dark was intended to be played.
The level that had those two brothers at the start to kill on a massive rig in the sea, go back and replay it. one objective can be done differently, quite stealthy as perfect dark was intended to be played.
RARE was like 4 times the size of Intelligent Systems in late 90's. They also have different purposes like both IS and HAL are constantly involved in development tools and technology R&D.
I think NIntendo should have held on to the Perfect Dark ip. It is the only worthwhile thing that Nintendo is really missing from its active catalog.
Mr.Awesome
Banned
Yes it was. Here is what happened. Nintendo was getting tired of Rares productivity so their idea to jumpstart Rare was to create an equal western studio studio and create a bit of a rivalry. The idea for this was for each studio to come out with a AAA game every other year. Unfortunately their new Western studio was an absolute fucking disaster that was lucky to survive its first few years under their furst run of management. Rare never took noticed of their new supposed rivals. Nintendo needed to cut their losses in this whole mess of events and got rid of Rare who they were tired of. Meanwhile Retro survived and went onto make a few classics.
WHAT!!? no... rareeeeeeee... are you telling me that we lost rareware because of retro? fuck retro, i wanted rare... and banjo.
I'm not sure who said this (may have been Seavor in is Conker commentary), but towards the end the looming news/rumors that they were being bought out basically halted their productivity even though they were still "working" on games. Actually, this may have been an interview about Donkey Kong Racing.
Nintendo not exercising the option to buy Rare still stands as one of their most short-sighted moves. They were a company not needing the cash, and they refused to wholly buy their best studio which was responsible for so much of their success. Donkey Kong Country was responsible for keeping the public interested in the SNES for an additional two years. The N64's western success was practically HALF attributed to Rare's titles!
You've got to build for the future in this industry. There was a solid path for Nintendo to take in the years 1999-2001 that could have secured an industry leading future for them if only they had had the imagination to take it. Buy Rare, continue to cultivate them, keep them funded and stocked with talent. And Sega was defeated and weak, looking for suitors and largely succumbed to a hostile takeover by 2003. If Nintendo had just offered them a sweetheart deal too Nintendo could have soundly beaten the Xbox with the Gamecube and this industry would look so different.
It would have been bold and daring but that was exactly what Nintendo needed to do back in 2001.
You've got to build for the future in this industry. There was a solid path for Nintendo to take in the years 1999-2001 that could have secured an industry leading future for them if only they had had the imagination to take it. Buy Rare, continue to cultivate them, keep them funded and stocked with talent. And Sega was defeated and weak, looking for suitors and largely succumbed to a hostile takeover by 2003. If Nintendo had just offered them a sweetheart deal too Nintendo could have soundly beaten the Xbox with the Gamecube and this industry would look so different.
It would have been bold and daring but that was exactly what Nintendo needed to do back in 2001.
clem84
Gold Member
Maybe Nintendo simply decided it wasn't worth the asking price. Had the Stampers brothers not decided to sell, N would probably have been very happy to continue to collaborate with Rare on all their games. The Stampers decided differently. Looking back, I really wish Nintendo would have purchased Rare. N and Rare made a great partnership and I have no doubt that Rare would have continued to make kick ass games on the Gamecube ad the Wii. Too bad...
^^^^^^^
Wholeheartedly agree with above post.
^^^^^^^
Wholeheartedly agree with above post.
Hero of Legend
Member
Quoting myself as I want to know if others are fine with this idea?
It was a really strange move taking into account nintendo philosophy. The are always taking about how difficult it is to expand your development teams. That you need time to "educate" people and you need quality. They already had all that and more, and they sold it all for money. Nowadays, they cant even make as much games as back then...
ZombiePlatypus
Member
OP, as you said, Nintendo is the last entity that should be critical of any studio's output volume/rate. They can't even seem to be capable of getting out a proper Mario game for their home console.
DeaconKnowledge
Member
Conker bombed because there was no market for Porkies on the N64.
Square2015
Member
Yes. It's NPD, 8m is probably WW
TreasureHunterG
Banned
Totally agree.
Nintendo's reason for dismissing Rare made no sense because most of their internal teams had the same issue.
Given the fact that Iwata shut down most of Nintendo's western division, Rare's probably was among his plan to turn Nintendo japanese-centric the way it had become under his direction.
Valjean Lafitte
Banned
Comparatively though? Its not like making video games was a breeze then, either. I won't argue that the Prime games weren't made in a reasonable time span. But it shouldn't take three years to make a new DKC game, even with all the intricacies of modern game development (which is so much grueling than the days of 16-bit game development!).
NST?
zero shift
Banned
Not really Banjo Tooie sold well. Conker's problem was that it couldn't really be marketed as it wasn't in any magazines (but Playboy) and only aired at late night TV shows.
One of the big general reasons why Rare has fallen that I feel that most people overlook is that the consumer base that buys their games jut doesn't exist on the console they make games for. Games like Kameo, Viva Pinate, and Nuts & Bolts don't really jive well on a platform whose target audience is 18-36 year old males who want cinematic, realistic, and/or violent videogames. Rare makes (or unfortunately I think its safe to say now made) games for the market place that dominated consoles during early to mid 90s, that consisted of preteen boys that wanted "fun for everyone" "rated PG" type games. This is a market that is still strong in Nintendo world, unfortunately is non-existent in the Xbox world. Most gamers tend to be older and if they are younger they prefer to play Call of Duty esque games. The problem with Rare is that when they left Nintendo they weren't only leaving their mentors, but their market.
I'd be down for it, but I wouldn't contribute much since I'm kinda lazy right now.
So how/why did MS allow Rare to make GBA and DS games?
goldenpp72
Member
Yes, so is most of them selling 3+ million copies, those failures.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
I think the deal didn't say anything about handheld games
Banjo ThreeDS, coming soon!
RawkHawk2010
Member
NinjaTehFish
Banned
Ask yourself 2 questions:
Does MS have hardware competing in the handheld market?
Does MS like money?
Nope, it was Diddy Kong Pilot that was retooled into Banjo-Pilot (and even then, it went through two builds as DKP and then another two as BP). Donkey Kong Racing was completely sent to the trash bin.
Yes I misread that post; I thought Lafitte was talking about Metroid, not DK. Retro appears to have gotten in the habit of rebuilding their engine with every game post Metroid, so I agree there is little reason for there to be a three year gap between DKCR and TF. There probably should not have been a three year period between MP3 and DKCR either.
Yes I think that if Nintendo had kept Rare and helped to cultivate their IPs (namely PD) during the Wii gen, maybe they would be better off going into this generation. Having a relevant FPS be exclusive to Nintendo could have been very important for them in a FPS-driven market, not to mention all of the other benefits provided by Rare's workforce and IPs.
Trash bin? Nah, it eventually evolved into Sabreman Stampede for Xbox 360 and then cancelled.
Makes sense, but the Stampers stayed on until 2007. I understand needing to stick around for a little bit post-sale to keep things relatively smooth but half a decade and a full console generation seems a bit much.
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Didnt someone come out and say mismanagement had a lot to do with it? As in Nintendo had to keep a very close eye on everything in order for them to ship a game under budget and on time? So its not necessarily output, but a clash in how Nintendo likes to maintain development.
Also, those mentioning retro in here need to remember that they are less than 100 people. Don't spew this 'a dkc sequel shouldn't take three years' bullshit. You know nothing about how they operate.
Also, those mentioning retro in here need to remember that they are less than 100 people. Don't spew this 'a dkc sequel shouldn't take three years' bullshit. You know nothing about how they operate.
I don't know the official word on it but my guess would be it was a ploy to try and grow the brands coming out on Xbox without launching them on a direct competitor. Like the idea would be to get these people like Viva Pinata/Banjo Kazooie and then buy an Xbox 360 for the "big boy" version of them. It's just a guess though.
Similar threads
- Poll