Support NeoGAF

[InsaneZero]

It's not a stretch to me to imagine they could remake Bayonetta 2 with a special edition name for other platforms in a few years. It's pretty commonplace. I mean, Microsoft have published a ton of XBLA games which then end up on other platforms. We just don't know to what extent this publishing agreement extends.

I'm pretty sure that if Nintendo is funding the game (and all evidence points to this being true), they already have rock-solid contracts to prevent this game from being ported elsewhere.

Give me an example of a game that Nintendo funded that was released on other platforms, and maybe you might have a case. Otherwise, everything that people have already said and Nintendo's actual publishing history makes your case implausible.

 

[Majukun]

Does Nintendo have rights to "Bayonetta: reloaded revengeance born to kill" edition, that is the direct sequel to the Sega published title "Bayonetta"? Does Sega need permission to put that game on other consoles?


Depends on if B2 does well. If it does, then Sega might want to capitalize and start funding Bayo games again, on multiple platforms.

that's what we were saying for ,like,twelve posts.
if sega wants to make a bayo 3,bayo magic brawl,cooking bayo or whatever with the franchise,they can.
what they CAN'T DO is porting a code they don't own on other consoles,they have the ability to do something with the bayo franchise,but they don't have power over something OTHERS made with the bayo franchise

 

[omonimo]

Actually, I kinda think it is when Sega doesn't have permission from Nintendo.

Well, I'm not talking of Sega but I'm refering to Platinum, if it's interest to this option or less. Of course, now hardly will admit it, it's not that stupid to screw it's relationship with nintendo. But in the future, who knows.

 

[Projectjustice]

This thread is amazing. Keep it coming port beggars.

 

[Raist]

Published AND funded?

MS published and funded Mass Effect. Or Bioshock (and in that case they're even credited for the development).

It's not impossible that as part of the deal Nintendo requires a complete exclusivity. But the fact that they're "publishing the game" and "giving money to the devs" for it, which is all we know about it, is certainly not in any way a proof that this game cannot under any circumstances get ported at some point.

No, but the fact that they're at least partially funding it does. Do you really think Nintendo is going to put money into something and then just let Sega take it and have other consoles have what they helped pay to make without charging them something?

Yep, that's how it works. Publishers always participate in the funding of a game in one way or another. 3rd party "freelance" (ie not part of a publishing company, so just like Bioware was before they were bought by EA) very rarely have the means to completely finish a game on their own, and need financial input from a publisher (not to mention their links with distribution channels, ads etc).

 

[schuelma]

This thread is amazing. Keep it coming port beggars.

It's pathetic.

 

[TDLink]

Well, I'm not talking of Sega but I'm refering to Platinum, if it's interest to this option or less. Of course, now hardly will admit it, it's not that stupid.

Platinum Games does not own the IPs of the games they make.

 

[gogogow]

MS definitely funds Gears.

I need a source.

According to Mike Capps, President of Epic Games, they own the IP and can release it for the PS3 if they wanted to. From the sounds of it, MS only publishes the game and do the marketing for them. That's very different than Bayonetta 2, where Nintendo pays for the entirety of the developement of the game.

Capps recently explained his wish to go multiplatform to IndustryGamers. "Do we wish we could take all those Killzone and Resistance fans on PS3, and get them to say 'Gears is awesome'? Yeah, sure, I'd love to ship the Gears trilogy on PlayStation. That would be fun. I want to be there; I want to be everywhere." Capps also stated unequivocally that the Gears IP belongs to Epic, and that it's their call which platform they release on, but that Microsoft has kept them happy in the past. "Time and time again, when it came down to figure out what we do next with Gears, we sat down with Microsoft and they've given us really good, compelling reasons to work with them again."

 

[Dave Meltzer]

I'm pretty sure that if Nintendo is funding the game (and all evidence points to this being true), they already have rock-solid contracts to prevent this game from being ported elsewhere.

Give me an example of a game that Nintendo funded that was released on other platforms, and maybe you might have a case. Otherwise, everything that people have already said and Nintendo's actual publishing history makes your case implausible.

I don't need evidence, because I'm not making a prediction. Unless you can prove that it's impossible for someone to pay Platinum to remake Bayonetta 2 for next gen systems then we're in agreement.

 

[Lord Ghirahim]

This thread is amazing. Keep it coming port beggars.

I'm lurking to see if this can turn into Epic Mickey Thread 2.

 

[zroid]

I think we can all agree that, while we don't know every single detail of the actual arrangement, Nintendo would have to be the most fucking stupid company in existence to basically pour heaps of cash into a project for which they have not written a specific clause preventing it from being released on competing platforms.

It would be perhaps one of the most self-defeating decisions in the history of the industry.

 

[Spieler Eins]

MS published and funded Mass Effect. Or Bioshock (and in that case they're even credited for the development).

It's not impossible that as part of the deal Nintendo requires a complete exclusivity. But the fact that they're "publishing the game" and "giving money to the devs" for it, which is all we know about it, is certainly not in any way a proof that this game cannot under any circumstances get ported at some point.

That's Microsoft, similar examples for Nintendo never left their console. Like recently, The Last Story.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Uh... why someone should be stupid to think it? Could happen, not for sure, but it's not illegal. Jeez how people become angry so easily.

I've already explained why it's stupid. There are three parties involved with the title and ALL of them point to Nintendo having the say in what happens to Bayonetta 2. Find me any shred of proof that Bayonetta 2 specifically might have a shot on another console. Sega since it's Nintendo's call. PG says it's Nintendo's call. Nintendo doesn't have to say shit, but it's obviously Nintendo's call. Man you guys should just ask Kamiya straight up if this has a chance on another console. Take a screenshot of the reply for me. I need the lulz.

 

[clay_ghost]

Easy answer: Sega can port the game to other platform If Sega recode every line of codes that are funded by Nintendo aka almost or just everything.

so its totally possible so continue to hope on, strongly against buying game you want on Nintendo console guys.

 

[omonimo]

It's pathetic.

I imagine give to the stupid or the pathetic to someone, it's more dignified at this point.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I don't need evidence, because I'm not making a prediction. Unless you can prove that it's impossible for someone to pay Platinum to remake Bayonetta 2 for next gen systems then we're in agreement.

All of your posts hinge on prediction.

No one is saying it's impossible, everyone is saying it's very unlikely because of what Sega would have to go to to port over a game to consoles it cancelled development to in the first place.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

I think we can all agree that, while we don't know every single detail of the actual arrangement, Nintendo would have to be the most fucking stupid company in existence to basically pour heaps of cash into a project for which they have not written a specific clause preventing it from being released on competing platforms.

It would be perhaps one of the most self-defeating decisions in the history of the industry.

Why? If people go through to 2015 thinking Bayonetta is exclusive, then it comes out on 720 and PS4, how does that harm Nintendo? It makes more sense for Nintendo to spend less by just getting a timed exclusivity.

 

[Majukun]

Citation needed.

MS published Gears of War and Ninja Gaiden. Does that mean they own the code?

if they have paid for the entire development (publishing a game doesn't mean you have funded the game,just that you have contributed to his distribution,like ubisoft is the publisher of the "no more heroes" franchise in the west,but had no role in the development,didn't fund it and didn't have control over the franchise),sure they do.

if i make a car using your project,and i have paid you in advance for the possibility to use these projects,that car is MINE ,not yours

 

[7threst]

Any publisher could go to Platinum. Doesn't have to be Sega.

I don't think Platinum has the say in this. The IP is owned by Sega (at least, that is what's being said in this thread and seems to be the case) and the code of Bayonetta 2 is owned by Nintendo. So any publisher wanting to fund a Bayonetta game has to talk to Sega. Any publisher who wants to make a Bayonetta game for other consoles has to deal woth Sega AND Nintendo.

So yeah, any publisher could go to Platinum and say "make a Bayonetta-game. We'll fund it!" but that won't be Bayonetta 2, unless it's been built from the ground up (and is an entirely different game, or if Nintendo gave permission for that.

 

[H_Prestige]

that's what we were saying for ,like,twelve posts.
if sega wants to make a bayo 3,bayo magic brawl,cooking bayo or whatever with the franchise,they can.
what they CAN'T DO is porting a code they don't own on other consoles,they have the ability to do something with the bayo franchise,but they don't have power over something OTHERS made with the bayo franchise

This is like the third time you've said this without backing it up with anything.

if they have paid for the entire development (publishing a game doesn't mean you have funded the game,just that you have contributed to his distribution,like ubisoft is the publisher of the "no more heroes" franchise in the west,but had no role in the development,didn't fund it and didn't have control over the franchise),sure they do.

if i make a car using your project,and i have paid you in advance for the possibility to use these projects,that car is MINE ,not yours

And here comes the car analogies.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I've already explained why it's stupid. There are three parties involved with the title and ALL of them point to Nintendo having the say in what happens to Bayonetta 2. Find me any shred of proof that Bayonetta 2 specifically might have a shot on another console. Sega since it's Nintendo's call. PG says it's Nintendo's call. Nintendo doesn't have to say shit, but it's obviously Nintendo's call. Man you guys should just ask Kamiya straight up if this has a chance on another console. Take a screenshot of the reply for me. I need the lulz.

Someone was already ahead of you.

 

[clay_ghost]

Why? If people go through to 2015 thinking Bayonetta is exclusive, then it comes out on 720 and PS4, how does that harm Nintendo? It makes more sense for Nintendo to spend less by just getting a timed exclusivity.

When the game were cancelled and dead before Nintendo fund it, I think Nintendo is not stupid enough to just make the deal a time exclusive.

 

[bobbychalkers]

A good analogy for this is Goldeneye 64. Nintendo doesn't own the James Bond license, thats' been passed all over since Goldeneye's release. When Eurocom/Activision remade the game for the Wii and eventually the PS360 from the ground up, there was no legal issues standing in the way. When Rare tried to remake the original for XBLA using original code, Nintendo put a stop to it.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

When the game were cancelled and dead before Nintendo fund it, I think Nintendo is not stupid enough to just make the deal a time exclusive.

How is just timed exclusive stupid? If it costs them half as much it's very smart.

 

[omonimo]

I've already explained why it's stupid. There are three parties involved with the title and ALL of them point to Nintendo having the say in what happens to Bayonetta 2. Find me any shred of proof that Bayonetta 2 specifically might have a shot on another console. Sega since it's Nintendo's call. PG says it's Nintendo's call. Nintendo doesn't have to say shit, but it's obviously Nintendo's call. Man you guys should just ask Kamiya straight up if this has a chance on another console. Take a screenshot of the reply for me. I need the lulz.

It's not stupid, it's an opinion & it's not that crazy. Do you really still believe to what a company said during it's exclusive relationship? " Yeah, fuck off nintendo, will sell it muliplatform if it will bombed" . Of course can't retract anything now, they have to sell it. But I don't think anyone is stupid to think otherwise because the market follow the money.

 

[H_Prestige]

A good analogy for this is Goldeneye 64. Nintendo doesn't own the James Bond license, thats' been passed all over since Goldeneye's release. When Eurocom/Activision remade the game for the Wii from the ground up, there was no legal issues standing in the way. When Rare tried to remake the original for XBLA using original code, Nintendo put a stop to it.

Wasn't GE a first party game though? It was made by Rare, who was owned by Nintendo. So of course everything about that game was owned by Nintendo, outside of James Bond license.

Nintendo doesn't own Bayo IP. They don't own Sega. They don't own Platinum Games. They are paying money to those two parties to develop an exclusive title for Wii U. Any assumptions beyond that are just assumptions.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

I've already explained why it's stupid. There are three parties involved with the title and ALL of them point to Nintendo having the say in what happens to Bayonetta 2. Find me any shred of proof that Bayonetta 2 specifically might have a shot on another console. Sega since it's Nintendo's call. PG says it's Nintendo's call. Nintendo doesn't have to say shit, but it's obviously Nintendo's call. Man you guys should just ask Kamiya straight up if this has a chance on another console. Take a screenshot of the reply for me. I need the lulz.

People lie, man

 

[Jaded Alyx]

Wasn't GE a first party game though? It was made by Rare, who was owned by Nintendo. So of course everything about that game was owned by Nintendo, outside of James Bond license.

Rare was never owned by Nintendo.

 

[clay_ghost]

How is just timed exclusive stupid? If it costs them half as much it's very smart.

because they have to fund everthing? Sega is not paying any $ out of their pocket ,the game was cancelled.If you paid for everything ,you will get or forcenout the best deal.sega is earning $without spending any $ here. If you co-fund maybe they will have time excusive instead.

 

[TDLink]

Wasn't GE a first party game though? It was made by Rare, who was owned by Nintendo. So of course everything about that game was owned by Nintendo, outside of James Bond license.

Bayonetta 2 is also a first party game. Being published by the hardware manufacturer in all regions is all it takes to be first party.

 

[bobbychalkers]

Wasn't GE a first party game though? It was made by Rare, who was owned by Nintendo. So of course everything about that game was owned by Nintendo, outside of James Bond license.

GE was a first party game. Bayonetta 2 is essentially a first party game as well. Nintendo doesn't own the JB license, they also don't own the Bayonetta 2 license. But they do own the code for those games.

 

[gogogow]

Why? If people go through to 2015 thinking Bayonetta is exclusive, then it comes out on 720 and PS4, how does that harm Nintendo? It makes more sense for Nintendo to spend less by just getting a timed exclusivity.

How is just timed exclusive stupid? If it costs them half as much it's very smart.

Not sure what you mean with "spend less" and "costs them half", because they are paying for the development. You can't "spend less" in this case. Nintendo isn't getting exclusivity for a game. They are paying to get the game made. Without Ninendo footing the bills, this game wouldn't be on any consoles at all.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

because they have to fund everthing? Sega is not paying any $ out of their pocket ,the game was cancelled.If you paid for everything ,you will get or forcenout the best deal.sega is earning $without spending any $ here. If you co-fund maybe they will have time excusive instead.

The game was already in development. We don't know how much additional work is being done here. What if Platinum said "yo we'll do it for x, or if you let us do a port to other systems later on we'll do it for y" and Nintendo said "yo y is cheaper lets do that"

 

[TDLink]

People lie, man

Nintendo isn't/wasn't involved with Rayman Legends in any form other than the game is coming to the system they own. It isn't a comparable situation.

 

[InsaneZero]

I don't need evidence, because I'm not making a prediction. Unless you can prove that it's impossible for someone to pay Platinum to remake Bayonetta 2 for next gen systems then we're in agreement.

Probatio diabolica has no place in an actual legitimate discussion. People are trying to describe an rational and reasonable outcome that actually have grounding in reality, not some far off chance that lightning will strike twice on a man that just won the Mega Millions.

 

[Gannd]

The game was already in development. We don't know how much additional work is being done here.

It was started. Canceled and then Nintendo saved it.

 

[clay_ghost]

People lie, man

hence the gears of wars and Ng compare. Gears were most likily fully funded by ms , Ng most likily not with ms helpin in others place like Nintendo with Rayman

 

[Corky]

Has there ever been an example of a game published by Nintendo/Mircrosoft/Sony that appeared on "another" platform? I can't recall a case, which leads me to think there's no chance in hell that Bayo 2 would pop up on anything other than Wii U.

 

[gamergirly]

Wow. There's going to be a ton of tears when these games, especially Bayonetta 2, are released for Wii U. I see now that people still have not truly gotten over it being announced exclusively for the system

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Not sure what you mean with "spend less" and "costs them half", because they are paying for the development. You can't "spend less" in this case. Nintendo isn't getting exclusivity for a game. They are paying to get the game made. Without Ninendo footing the bills, this game wouldn't be on any consoles at all.

Nintendo has gone to Platinum and said "yo, finish Bayonetta 2 for Wii U and we'll give you some money". You don't know 1) how much money, 2) if it's entirely funding the project or if Platinum themselves can fund part of it in exchange for future rights to port it to other systems or 3) how much work had already been done on Bayonetta and thus how high the budget would be. These are all variables we can't speak on with certainty.

 

[Raist]

Wasn't GE a first party game though? It was made by Rare, who was owned by Nintendo. So of course everything about that game was owned by Nintendo, outside of James Bond license.

Nintendo doesn't own Bayo IP. They don't own Sega. They don't own Platinum Games. They are paying money to those two parties to develop an exclusive title for Wii U. Any assumptions beyond that are just assumptions.

Rare was 2nd party.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

JP Kellams ‏@PG_jp
Translated @PG_kamiya tweet: We are a developer. Nintendo are the ones kind enough to fund and publish our W101 and Bayo 2 projects. (1/2)

JP Kellams ‏@PG_jp
Via @pg_kamiya: So if Nintendo says “We are publishing Bayo 2 on PS3/360.” Then it will happen. So please go ask them, not us. (2/2)
Retweeted by 神谷英樹 Hideki Kamiya

Considering the above-
And considering it's obvious that "people lie"- the conclusion we can ALL draw from these tweets is the following:
Microsoft is funding Bayonetta 2 as a timed exclusive for Nintendo Wii U which will later expire and then Nintendo will fund a port for the PS4 and Vita. Then Sega will bring back the Dreamcast 2 and have the crossover hit Halo X Call of Duty X Pokemon.
I'm just saying it's possible. If you can't prove that it's impossible then we agree.

 

[TDLink]

Has there ever been an example of a game published by Nintendo/Mircrosoft/Sony that appeared on "another" platform?

Published: Yes, rarely.

Funded: Never.

 

[Majukun]

This is like the third time you've said this without backing it up with anything.



And here comes the car analogies.

why would they own something they didn't make and didn't paid others to make?
i already said thousands of time in this thread why sega doesn't own the code of the game,BECAUSE WHO OWNS THE RIGHTS OF A FRANCHISE DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY OWNS EVERYTHING MADE WITH SAID FRANCHISE

made many examples too..but i will write it again,because i'm stupid.

Do JK Rowlings,the woman who made the harry potter franchise,have power over the film Warner Bros made using his franchise?

 

[Maztorre]

It would be nice if the people who keep entertaining the idea of this as multiplatform did even basic research before posting. Your entire argument hinges on nonsense like Sega stepping in to publish a Bayonetta 3 or Bayonetta 2.5 on other consoles after:

a) Sega couldn't justify further funding for Bayonetta 2 which was even partially through development. Why would either party express an interest in working together again on a multiplatform game when Platinum's 4 game deal with Sega is over and they have found other willing partners in Konami and Nintendo. The reason Sega didn't fund Bayonetta 2 isn't to fish for Nintendo cash for a timed exclusive but because:
b) Sega do not fund or publish these types of games anymore. They fund 4 core IP at retail in the West(now 5 with the Relic acquisition) and make up the rest in digital revenue. Sega do not take on anything resembling risk when publishing on consoles anymore. Vanquish, Bayonetta, Anarchy Reigns were all risks and they all underperformed commercially.

But hey since Kamiya and Sega might be liars all bets are off. I can't wait for Bayonetta 2 Sigma for Ouya, iOS and Steambox.

As Kamiya would say: use your own brain.

 

[Dave Meltzer]

Probatio diabolica has no place in an actual legitimate discussion. People are trying to describe an rational and reasonable outcome that actually have grounding in reality, not some far off chance that lightning will strike twice on a man that just won the Mega Millions.

I'm being completely realistic. If you said to me right now, bet what will happen, I'll say it'll be Nintendo exclusive because the game isn't going to be popular enough to warrant somebody investing the money to bring it to other platforms. But do I think it's impossible for it to come to other platforms, from a legal perceptive? No. And seeing as anything can happen, people getting angry at the suggestion it could maybe happen look ridiculous.

 

[InsaneZero]

Has there ever been an example of a game published by Nintendo/Mircrosoft/Sony that appeared on "another" platform? I can't recall a case, which leads me to think there's no chance in hell that Bayo 2 would pop up on anything other than Wii U.

Mass Effect and Ninja Gaiden 2

 

[Holy Order Sol]

Why pay attention to anything at all since it could all be lies.

 

[DaBoss]

Considering the above-
And considering it's obvious that "people lie"- the conclusion we can ALL draw from these tweets is the following:
Microsoft is funding Bayonetta 2 as a timed exclusive for Nintendo Wii U which will later expire and then Nintendo will fund a port for the PS4 and Vita. Then Sega will bring back the Dreamcast 2 and have the crossover hit Halo X Call of Duty X Pokemon.
I'm just saying it's possible. If you can't prove that it's impossible then we agree.

OMG, lol.

 

[TDLink]

It would be nice if the people who keep entertaining the idea of this as multiplatform did even basic research before posting. Your entire argument hinges on nonsense like Sega stepping in to publish a Bayonetta 3 or Bayonetta 2.5 on other consoles after:

a) Sega couldn't justify further funding for Bayonetta 2 which was even partially through development. Why would either party express an interest in working together again on a multiplatform game when Platinum's 4 game deal with Sega is over and they have found other willing partners in Konami and Nintendo. The reason Sega didn't fund Bayonetta 2 isn't to fish for Nintendo cash for a timed exclusive but because:
b) Sega do not fund or publish these types of games anymore. They fund 4 core IP at retail in the West(now 5 with the Relic acquisition) and make up the rest in digital revenue. Sega do not take on anything resembling risk when publishing on consoles anymore. Vanquish, Bayonetta, Anarchy Reigns were all risks and they all underperformed commercially.

But hey since Kamiya and Sega might be liars all bets are off. I can't wait for Bayonetta 2 Sigma for Ouya, iOS and Steambox.

As Kamiya would say: use your own brain.

Hey look, another great post. Thanks for being rational and realistic in this thread.