Naked Lunch
Member
I see little reason to get these if you already own the 360 version and have a 1X.
Is there anything extra im missing?
Is there anything extra im missing?
Last edited:
-
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.
Bayonetta & Vanquish 10th Anniversary Bundle | Announcement Trailer
- Thread starter Mista
- Start date
goldenpp72
Member
Nintendo doesn't own the IP, Sega does. Who funded it as actually irrelevant. MS also "funded" Mass Effect, but clearly doesn't own the IP, MS also funded one of the Tomb Raider games, a Ninja Gaiden etc. Funding something doesn't mean you automatically own the IP.
Didn't MS also fund Sunset Overdrive? Yet that IP is now owned by Sony, so funding something doesn't actually mean by default they own the IP. Unless you have evidence that Nintendo bought the IP from Sega, its up to Sega to put that game where they feel like it.
By that logic, Mass Effect 1 shouldn't be on the PS3....yet...it is.
Unless either of you have any evidence that SEGA doesn't own the IP anymore, its up to them.
Blood Borne ? Sega doesn't own the Metal Gear Solid IP, that would be a question for Konami.
MS likely setup a deal with EA in regards to allowing Mass Effect to come to other platforms which is why it took so long to release. MS killed their sports game division just to get EA to enable XBL in their sports releases, it's unlikely they would be petty and hold a single game hostage. Nintendo though has no vested interest in allowing it nor have they ever done it. Also, I doubt the original Sunset will ever go to Playstation unless Sony put up some cash because MS has no need to please them. Funding agreements always have stipulations and Bioware got bought out, nothing like that happened here. I'd bet serious money that outside of Sega being bought out, the game will never go elsewhere because no one would touch it until Nintendo stepped in to get it finished.
Last edited:
Dhoulmagus2008
Member
Can't believe these are already 10 years old.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Holy fuck that steelbook.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
you’re absolutely right. I forgot that this is a Sega bundle and not a Platinum Games bundle
ActuallyEDMIX makes a good point. Funding a game doesn’t mean exclusive, it’s all about who owns the IP.
Microsoft funded Mass Effect 1, Sony funded PS1 Crash Bandicoot games, yet because they didn’t own the IP, these games ended up on other platforms.
Funding the game is one thing but if someone owns the actual publishing rights, it is a right that is independent of the rights of the IP to the singular work in question.
Blood Borne
Member
First of all, do you have any hard evidence that Nintendo owns the publishing rights to Bayonetta 2 and also, didn’t Sony own the publishing rights to Crash Bandicoot games and Microsoft own the publishing rights to Mass Effect and Sunset Overdrive?
Just asking out of curiosity.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
No problem.
Polygon Article
Im not sure about the others since I am not familiar with the product as much.
Another example is Star Wars: A New Hope. Even though Disney owned the IP to Star Wars, 20th Century Fox owned the theater rights in perpetuity for episode 4 and therefore until Disney purchased FOX, all the rights to showing the first movie went through FOX even though Lucusarts/Disney owns Star Wars.
I hope that makes sense.
TheDuskwalker
Member
Ask Nintendo About Bayonetta 2 On Other Platforms, Say PlatinumGames
www.siliconera.com
Hideki Kamiya explains exactly how Nintendo saved Bayonetta 2 - The Daily Net
Bayonetta 2 was already in development and denied a publisher when Nintendo swooped in to save it.
nintendotoday.com
Blood Borne
Member
Edit: just saw the Nintendo today link. Straight from Kamiya himself.
Thanks for the link.
Last edited:
Blood Borne
Member
ThanksAsk Nintendo About Bayonetta 2 On Other Platforms, Say PlatinumGames
Hideki Kamiya explains exactly how Nintendo saved Bayonetta 2 - The Daily Net
Bayonetta 2 was already in development and denied a publisher when Nintendo swooped in to save it.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
I wonder if this will look better than Vanquish BC on Xbox One X? Did they put out a 4K patch for that?
EDMIX
Member
lol unlikely. MS didn't own the IP, Bioware actually did. EA buys the IP from the parent company that owned Pandemic and Bioware.
Not MS.
Mass Effect coming to other platforms has to do EA owning the IP.
Period.
? Publishing something doesn't mean you own the IP, MS published LOTS f games they don't own the IP to. I saw nothing stating Nintendo bought the publishing rights to that IP, it wouldn't even make much sense without the actual IP ITSELF mind you.
Blood Borne
That is a member of Platinum games, not SEGA. Keep in mind they are simply supporting the timed deal, I would never take anything they say at face value as even Ken Levine was running around telling everyone Bioshock was not being made for PS3 when it actually was. Until SEGA THEMSELVES tell you they sold the IP, anything else is irrelevant tbh.
TheDuskwalker
no where in that post did it confirm that Nintendo bought any rights to that series....MS also swooped in fund and publish Tomb Raider so....
Thats not as solid as you might think.
Last edited:
goldenpp72
Member
lol unlikely. MS didn't own the IP, Bioware actually did. EA buys the IP from the parent company that owned Pandemic and Bioware.
Not MS.
Mass Effect coming to other platforms has to do EA owning the IP.
Period.
? Publishing something doesn't mean you own the IP, MS published LOTS f games they don't own the IP to. I saw nothing stating Nintendo bought the publishing rights to that IP, it wouldn't even make much sense without the actual IP ITSELF mind you.
Until SEGA THEMSELVES tell you they sold the IP, anything else is irrelevant tbh.
MS also swooped in fund and publish Tomb Raider so....
Thats not as solid as you might think.
You have no evidence to back up what you say, I have the power of common sense. Deals like this always have rules or stipulations. We don't know what the deal for Mass Effect was, was it always timed exclusive? Was there a contingency for IP in the event of a buy out? Did EA strike a deal with MS after the fact?
Ownership of the IP means nothing if you have a contractual obligation. Epic released Gears on 360 and stated they own the IP and can put future entries anywhere they want, but obviously MS kept making a deal with them to continually disallow that. That's how agreements work. No company on the fucking planet is going to fund an entire games creation only to have no word on where it can go.
Do you really think Nintendo came to Platinum and said, here is 10 million dollars to finish your game, feel free to put the game wherever, we're really nice.
If so you're an idiot. MS paid for Tomb Raider to be timed exclusive and didn't fund the creation of it, if MS wanted to fund it and part of the agreement was it can never go anywhere else, ownership of the IP won't magically override that unless there is some kind of contingency (like the company was bought out or it didn't meet some kind of threshold)
Here's another scenario, Sony funded the creation of Spiderman for PS4 but doesn't own the Spiderman property. Marvel can't force Sony to allow that game to release on Xbox even though Sony doesn't own it, they likely formed a multiple game agreement and that likely required it to officially remain exclusive on whatever level Sony demanded to seal the deal.
Obviously we don't know the deal here, but it's ok to use our brains. If you think that makes no sense then I'd like to message you a financial proposition that will greatly benefit myself and only myself.
Last edited:
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
Publishing rights in this case is respective to the particular and individual event, game, movie, album or book.
Nintendo only has the publishing rights to Bayonetta 2. Which gives them final say on what happens with that particular game. They have no say so over how or where the IP moves in the future or past.
Yes Microsoft publishes games that they don't own the IP to however they are not publishing games on other systems that they have funded without expressed consent.
Disney owns the Hulk IP however Comcast (Universal) owns the movie rights and thus Hulk can not appear or star in any movie Disney makes unless he is accompanied by other Avengers.
Nas the Rapper wrote every rhyme on his first album but does not on his publishing rights even though he owns his Self IP.
EDMIX
Member
Stop getting so emotional I'm not going to resort to name-calling like you guys it's just immature. smh
At the end of the day the price of the intellectual property in regards to ownership is going to be the cost of them ever permanently allowing something to only exist by one company it would be like trying to argue how much money can I pay you for you to never use the car that you own, why would the amount I give you be less than the actual complete cost of the car itself?
So this idea that somebody is permanently going to pay to own a property without actually paying the equivalent price of that property is actually hilariously strange, doesn't make sense and you cannot even cite a single time such a strange thing as ever occurred.
The next thing you need to understand is if the deal that was done with Gears of War was so cheap and lucrative in the game was never going anywhere why on Earth did Microsoft purchase the intellectual property if it was so irrelevant in cost efficient to Simply continue to make a deal?
So my friend you cannot have it both ways you can not argue that it exists exclusively because of a deal and then at the same time ignore that the very same company are talking about clearly purchased the intellectual property.....
The next thing you have to answer is why I wasn't Microsoft deal regarding Mass Effect so fucking good that it over rides electronic arts purchasing the intellectual property? soooooo companies purchase the intellectual property for a reason. What you are arguing with some of those games by the way is complete happened chance that they didn't end up anywhere else and I would argue the only reason they did it was because the until actual property was officially purchased by another company to make sure that didn't happen in the first place timed deals happen all the time in gaming.
But the possibility of a property that is not owned by a publisher being exclusively only created for a specific platform based on a deal and not based on ownership of the property is not only rare I'm not even sure you could bring up really any situation in which such a deal has ever been made outside of happened chance of any company that might have closed down or been purchased after the fact.
It would be like trying to argue that Nintendo has a deal with Capcom so Resident Evil 2002 never goes to another platform and the reality is you could argue that argument literally up until the remastered in use all of that time to exaggerate that it's "true exclusive" not understanding that it's absence on other platforms has more to do with the publisher simply deciding not support it yet not because of some Ultra secret conspiracy deal that Nintendo owns something of it or anything like that.
Keep in mind with Resident Evil 2002 I've heard that argument for years people literally try to even argue Nintendo helping development or even the GameCube being featured inside of the game with some sort of secret reason and as the years went on they try to argue that because it was so long that that was the reason why it really was an official deal completely ignoring that all they're arguing is actually happenedchance.
Even the example you used is massively unlikely. Sony may have funded Spider-Man but Sony does not actually own Marvel which means it's likely up to them to decide where they actually put that game in the future so if you end up seeing that game somewhere else don't be surprised
Sony does not fucking own Marvel lol
I mean Jesus Christ you're saying this right after MLB post Sony to release their baseball series multi platform that has everything to do with Sony does not own Major League Baseball, so Sony funding the game has no relevance their funding something they do not actually own the Property to unless you're now trying to tell me Sony owns baseball...
So we may not know the deal but it is extremely unlikely that the deal is to permanently own something but not by the actual intellectual property because such an argument does not make any sense how much money can I pay for your car for you not to actually use it? If you owe $30,000 to the bank and I'm telling you I want to permanently make you not drive your car what do you think the offer is going to be? So no company in their right mind is going to relinquish the damn rights to a game without simply selling the entire property for the damn cost of what they believe the property is worth because at some point you're literally arguing for them to sell the property without selling the property.....
Unless Nintendo buys the intellectual property that game is good to go wherever Sega feels like it.
Just like unless Sony literally buys Major League Baseball MLB will go wherever the actual company feels like bringing Major League Baseball. Keep in mind Sony has been funding that property longer than anything regarding our discussion with this game that alone should tell you a simple deal of publishing and development doesn't actually mean anything unless you literally own the damn property.
Soapbox Killer
"Yes Microsoft publishes games that they don't own the IP to however they are not publishing games on other systems that they have funded without expressed consent" ?? Never said Nintendo would publish those games on other platforms, simply that they don't own the IP, thus the game can go else where and published by someone else.MS funded and published Mass Effect 1, clearly it was put on PC and PS3 by EA..
MS funded and published that Tomb Raider game and it was clearly put on PS4 by Square.
This deal is no different.
"Nintendo only has the publishing rights to Bayonetta 2. Which gives them final say on what happens with that particular game."
Saying it doesn't make it true bud, you guys keep lying that they have or own something with zero evidence showing SEGA EVER selling the publishing rights or IP to Nintendo. Thats like saying MS OWNS Tomb Raider cause they published, yet....its on PS4.
How on earth do you know that won't be the exact same situation as this?
goldenpp72
Member
Stop getting so emotional I'm not going to resort to name-calling like you guys it's just immature. smh
At the end of the day the price of the intellectual property in regards to ownership is going to be the cost of them ever permanently allowing something to only exist by one company it would be like trying to argue how much money can I pay you for you to never use the car that you own, why would the amount I give you be less than the actual complete cost of the car itself?
So this idea that somebody is permanently going to pay to own a property without actually paying the equivalent price of that property is actually hilariously strange, doesn't make sense and you cannot even cite a single time such a strange thing as ever occurred.
The next thing you need to understand is if the deal that was done with Gears of War was so cheap and lucrative in the game was never going anywhere why on Earth did Microsoft purchase the intellectual property if it was so irrelevant in cost efficient to Simply continue to make a deal?
So my friend you cannot have it both ways you can not argue that it exists exclusively because of a deal and then at the same time ignore that the very same company are talking about clearly purchased the intellectual property.....
The next thing you have to answer is why I wasn't Microsoft deal regarding Mass Effect so fucking good that it over rides electronic arts purchasing the intellectual property? soooooo companies purchase the intellectual property for a reason. What you are arguing with some of those games by the way is complete happened chance that they didn't end up anywhere else and I would argue the only reason they did it was because the until actual property was officially purchased by another company to make sure that didn't happen in the first place timed deals happen all the time in gaming.
But the possibility of a property that is not owned by a publisher being exclusively only created for a specific platform based on a deal and not based on ownership of the property is not only rare I'm not even sure you could bring up really any situation in which such a deal has ever been made outside of happened chance of any company that might have closed down or been purchased after the fact.
It would be like trying to argue that Nintendo has a deal with Capcom so Resident Evil 2002 never goes to another platform and the reality is you could argue that argument literally up until the remastered in use all of that time to exaggerate that it's "true exclusive" not understanding that it's absence on other platforms has more to do with the publisher simply deciding not support it yet not because of some Ultra secret conspiracy deal that Nintendo owns something of it or anything like that.
Keep in mind with Resident Evil 2002 I've heard that argument for years people literally try to even argue Nintendo helping development or even the GameCube being featured inside of the game with some sort of secret reason and as the years went on they try to argue that because it was so long that that was the reason why it really was an official deal completely ignoring that all they're arguing is actually happenedchance.
Even the example you used is massively unlikely. Sony may have funded Spider-Man but Sony does not actually own Marvel which means it's likely up to them to decide where they actually put that game in the future so if you end up seeing that game somewhere else don't be surprised
Sony does not fucking own Marvel lol
I mean Jesus Christ you're saying this right after MLB post Sony to release their baseball series multi platform that has everything to do with Sony does not own Major League Baseball, so Sony funding the game has no relevance their funding something they do not actually own the Property to unless you're now trying to tell me Sony owns baseball...
So we may not know the deal but it is extremely unlikely that the deal is to permanently own something but not by the actual intellectual property because such an argument does not make any sense how much money can I pay for your car for you not to actually use it? If you owe $30,000 to the bank and I'm telling you I want to permanently make you not drive your car what do you think the offer is going to be? So no company in their right mind is going to relinquish the damn rights to a game without simply selling the entire property for the damn cost of what they believe the property is worth because at some point you're literally arguing for them to sell the property without selling the property.....
Unless Nintendo buys the intellectual property that game is good to go wherever Sega feels like it.
Just like unless Sony literally buys Major League Baseball MLB will go wherever the actual company feels like bringing Major League Baseball. Keep in mind Sony has been funding that property longer than anything regarding our discussion with this game that alone should tell you a simple deal of publishing and development doesn't actually mean anything unless you literally own the damn property.
MS funded and published Mass Effect 1, clearly it was put on PC and PS3 by EA..
MS funded and published that Tomb Raider game and it was clearly put on PS4 by Square.
This deal is no different.
"Nintendo only has the publishing rights to Bayonetta 2. Which gives them final say on what happens with that particular game."
Saying it doesn't make it true bud, you guys keep lying that they have or own something with zero evidence showing SEGA EVER selling the publishing rights or IP to Nintendo. Thats like saying MS OWNS Tomb Raider cause they published, yet....its on PS4.
How on earth do you know that won't be the exact same situation as this?
This wall of text is too much to respond to entirely because you simply don't understand reason, so I won't bother trying to argue every silly point you just spat out. If there were any industry people left here they would snuff you out basically immediately and you'd still try to argue.
MLB isn't anywhere near the same thing, it likely was a case of Sony having a prior agreement and now that agreement has come to an end (just like EA has to renew their NFL license for exclusivity). Nintendo will not and has never put a 'we'll pay for the whole game to exist and you can release on Xbox later' clause in any of their agreements. They either get the exclusive or they don't fund it. If Nintendo makes a contract that says "Bayonetta 2 is to be Nintendo exclusive permanently if we fund this much, we own the publishing rights to this game perpetually" and they agree to it, there is no way they can get out of that agreement NO MATTER WHO OWNS THE IP, unless there is some kind of clause in the contract but I would doubt it in this case.
MS typically makes deals that are kind of soft and low commitment, they help fund games but usually don't fully fund them which is why they don't get exclusives. They did fund Gears of War on the 360 and those games NEVER went to a competitive platform, they said it themselves, each game is exclusive forever until MS stops paying for the next entry. If Epic had decided to keep Gears and funded 4 themselves, they would have had the right to put it wherever they wanted, but MS owned the rights to publishing the Gears 1/2/3/Judgement most likely, which was done on a case to case basis. It really is so simple and I can't believe I wasted a couple more minutes arguing with someone who is basically outing themselves as ignorant.
Imagine someone building many houses with the same design they own, you buy the house outright and in the contract you are now the owner of that one property, not all of the houses built with that blueprint, but that one house... Only for them to say no, it's actually our house and we'll do what we please with it because you're EDMIX and that's how things work, derp derp.
Edit: Here is a direct quote from a slightly known involved party on this matter as well "“As for Bayonetta, we developed the game after signing a deal with Sega. Later it was decided to also develop the sequel, so we started working on Bayonetta 2. As I have said before, if you want Bayonetta 2 on PS4 or Xbox One, how about trying to ask Nintendo? If Nintendo doesn’t say yes, it’s not going to happen. While you’re at it, try asking for Mario and Zelda too.” "
EDMIX take: Nah, the IP owners, the developers, and the funding provider, have no idea what they're talking about, if I say it can go somewhere else without Nintendo giving permission then it will damnit!
Last edited:
TheDuskwalker
Member
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................
goldenpp72
Member
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................
Not sure what you're referencing there so ok?
Freedom Gate Co.
Banned
2 mediocre overrated games in one bundle, hooray.
TheDuskwalker
Member
I think you missed the joke. Look at my post responding to Blood Borne, then look at EDMIX @ing me.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
The publishing info for the game is available in the credits of the game and it is also available in Nintendo quarterly statements from the year the game was released. You can easily search a wiki or the Nintendo of japan website if you want actual tangible receipts.
If your debate is whether or not the publishing agreement gives Nintendo or any entity over an IP that they dont own I will leave that to your own discretion. We know Sega owns both the IP and the publishing rights to the first game. We know Nintendo owns the publishing rights to the 2nd and 3rd game. The rest I leave to you.
Hope this helps.
EDMIX
Member
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................
I'm not sure what you mean, I stated the owners of the IP own the series, not developers. Platinum games doesn't own the IP to Bayonetta, Vanquish etc, that is owned by Sega, just like Nier is owned by Square. Who developers it is irrelevant if they don't own the IP as they have no say in something like that.
Ken Levine also stated no PS3 version of Bioshock was being developed when a PS3 version was 100% being developed.
Shinji Mikami even stated he would cut his head off if RE4 appeared on the PS2 as to argue its exclusivity, but clearly based on its PS2 release, it was already being made. He might have created RE4, but he did not own the rights to the Resident Evil IP. He is just playing his role in the timed deal and doing what he is being told.
Until the owner the IP states otherwise, I will lean towards who ever owns the IP.
MS funded and published Mass Effect, yet didn't own the IP.
EA buys the IP, Mass Effect is on PS3.
So..... I don't think folks need to be putting much stock in what a developer or publisher states regarding a series if they DON'T OWN THE IP! We've heard that argument before and the end results show who buys the IP , controls the future of those titles, not who funded the past games, published the past games etc.
Soapbox Killer
Thats still incorrect bud. Publishing a title doesn't mean you own the publishing RIGHTS to a title, that would be like saying MS owns Tomb Raider or Ninja Gaiden. 
Microsoft will publish Rise of the Tomb Raider (update)
Microsoft will publish Rise of the Tomb Raider when it's released next year exclusively on Xbox consoles, Microsoft's head of global product marketing Aaron Greenberg revealed on Twitter this week....
www.polygon.com
Microsoft is the publisher of Rise of the Tomb Raider
Square Enix confirms Ever since Microsoft’s gamescom exclusivity reveal, there’s been plenty of speculation about the state of Rise of...
www.destructoid.com
Thats like trying to say Capcom owns the publisher rights to GTA as they PUBLISH the games in Japan, thats like trying to say SEGA owns the publishing rights to EA games as they publish many of their titles in Japan. So....you can publish a game, that doesn't mean you OWN THE PUBLISHING RIGHTS to that title, it simply means you are marketing, distributing, funding etc, doesn't mean you are now the exclusive owner of doing that for said IP unless stated otherwise.
Sega distributing EA games in Japan, starting with Shadows of the Damned
Garcia Hotspur is passing through Japan in order to make a little money on his way to Hell, and he's got an unlikely guide: Sega. The Japanese publisher has taken on Japanese distribution duties for EA games, starting in August. The first title to be released under this agreement, as alluded...
www.engadget.com
So sometimes a publisher can own the IP, look at APEX Legends. EA owns the IP and Team and is publisher.
Some times a publisher can be JUST a publisher owning no rights to exclusively publish, look at EA when they published Titanfall for ReSpawn.
Now consider, if publishing means they own something of Titanfall for example, why spend $400 million when they can just do a publishing deal if its SOOOOO powerful?
ReSpawn choose to publish their game with EA, EA agreed to. That doesn't mean ReSpawn NEEDS to go with EA next time, as ReSpawn owns the IP, it means they can go to Acitivsion, get bought out by Ubisoft if they want to etc. The IP gives them that control. That is why EA BOUGHT ReSpawn and their IPs, to OWN it. So publishing does not actually ALWAYS mean the publisher owns the right to something, Sony doesn't own the rights to MLB, EA doesn't own the rights to the NFL. So being the publisher of a series doesn't actually always mean by default the publisher owns 100% the rights to the IP, many times thats incorrect. Too many examples shows this as to assume Nintendo owns Bayonetta is to assume MS owns Sunset Overdrive despite Sony now owing the IP. Its happened waaaaay too many times to seriously be trying suggest publishing = owning.
MS funded Sunset Overdrive, published Sunset Overdrive and yet the IP is now at Sony.
That is not different then the Mass Effect buy out either. EA would have no reason to spend 400 million on a team and IP if simply "publishing"gave them rights for life or something, no different then MS would have NEVER bought Gears Of War if simply publishing gave them rights FOR LIFE. If publishing really means someone owns soooooo much of a title without actually really spending money on the IP, EA nor MS would even waste the money buying those teams and IPs. You just don't have enough to really argue that "publishing" means complete, absolute ownership of something as you'd have to question the entire point of any company buying up teams and IPs, couldn't they just "publish" those games and keep em for life while saving money?
How did that turn out for MS with Mass Effect? How much did publishing and funding a game really matter when legally EA owns the IP? Do you even have 1 example of someone publishing a game that suddenly magically has more rights the the owner of the actual property? Even once?
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
I think it's not silly to assume Platinum know who has the rights of Bayo 2 specifically. They could have easily said ask SEGA, not Nintendo. It's definitely silly to assume you know better just because completely unrelated IP and games and series were handled, naturally, completely differently.
Nobody said Nintendo owns the Bayonetta IP, it just clearly seems they have, for years now, sway in where Bayo 2 (and presumably 3) specifically can be ported the way the deal between SEGA, Platinum and Nintendo at the time was contracted, whether they had a sensible time limit or not remains to be seen.
It's not far fetched to think a game that wouldn't happen without their involvement (rather than only having a game partially funded a la Street Fighter V, which has yet to appear on certain competing platforms regardless) so they potentially fully funded could have certain strict obligations in return.
Have you seen the contracts to assume othewise?
Keep the hope alive, it's only been over 5 years since Bayonetta 2 was released, it could happen and then your wait will be worth it, hopefully before you're dead (knock on wood, but shit happens, you never know) you can actually play the game you refuse to accept on Nintendo systems after all, lol.
How about that GoldenEye (64) on Xbox now that Rare is with Microsoft and the actual GoldenEye/007 IP is clearly and obviously no longer with Nintendo (given Activision made a GoldenEye game that was multi platform, duh), how did that work out? Going on and on about vague IP shit doesn't mean you know shit about it.
Nobody said Nintendo owns the Bayonetta IP, it just clearly seems they have, for years now, sway in where Bayo 2 (and presumably 3) specifically can be ported the way the deal between SEGA, Platinum and Nintendo at the time was contracted, whether they had a sensible time limit or not remains to be seen.
It's not far fetched to think a game that wouldn't happen without their involvement (rather than only having a game partially funded a la Street Fighter V, which has yet to appear on certain competing platforms regardless) so they potentially fully funded could have certain strict obligations in return.
Have you seen the contracts to assume othewise?
Keep the hope alive, it's only been over 5 years since Bayonetta 2 was released, it could happen and then your wait will be worth it, hopefully before you're dead (knock on wood, but shit happens, you never know) you can actually play the game you refuse to accept on Nintendo systems after all, lol.
How about that GoldenEye (64) on Xbox now that Rare is with Microsoft and the actual GoldenEye/007 IP is clearly and obviously no longer with Nintendo (given Activision made a GoldenEye game that was multi platform, duh), how did that work out? Going on and on about vague IP shit doesn't mean you know shit about it.
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
? Nope.
My argument is the owner of the IP has final say. Not developer, publisher etc unless the developer or publisher is the IP owner.
MLB and the NFL is very much 100% the same thing, its the owner of a property giving the final say. Sony nor EA do NOT OWN THE MLB OR NFL. Thus, a developer and publisher will not have final say in the use of those properties, how ever Sony OWNED IP will have the final say with Sony, that can't apply to something like MLB or NFL etc or even Star Wars as the properties are not owned by Sony or EA. So....publishing doesn't mean you own the IP to something.
Final say goes to the owners of the property by default. So we also have Ken Levine stating no PS3 version of Bioshock would come out too, he doesn't own the IP and is likely saying that cause the publisher told him to as to keep the agreement of appeared exclusivity. It happens all the time. MS didn't make some different deal and Nintendo made some magical deal or something, they published and funded a IP they don't own, it will go to where ever the owner of the IP desires. For god sakes, MS funded Mass Effect 1 KNOWING it was going to be a big series with 3 titles and EA still bought the IP and Mass Effect is now on PS3.
So unless MS bought the IP, that game was going to where ever the IP owner wanted. Just cause you WANT the situation to be different with Nintendo, doesn't mean it actually is as how much can you pay for a IP owner to NOT have control of an IP that actually just isn't the price for the IP? Thats like saying I don't want you to use your car for LIFE, but hey let me pay you less then you owe to the bank or something. It doesn't even remotely make sense my friend.
Alexios
? I already own Bayonetta 2 on Wii U, I got it day 1.....Platinum games doesn't own the Bayonetta series, Sega does.
What I'm saying is a developer making a comment about exclusivity when its clear they don't own the IP and a deal has been made is actually moot. Shinji Mikami also stated Resident Evil 4 would never come to the PS2. I respect that team and developer a great deal, but he doesn't own the IP, thus their point is actually pretty irrelevant as developer make statements like that to support time deals for the publisher to make it appear to be exclusive for life or something.
"whether they had a time limit or not remains to be seen" Could be, or could simply be they are not ready to port it yet or they might have a deal to wait til 3 releases etc. I simply think its unlikely they made a deal to have someone own their IP for life without actually selling the IP itself, It seems massively unlikely.
The 007 deal is a entire thread of its own lol A lot of that simply supports who ever doesn't have the rights to the bond IP at the time can't really make it happen.
Consider this, with all the talk about publisher or who owns Rare...etc, Activision had the bond rights, thus released a remake of Goldeneye with Daniel Craig....
Not MS, not Nintendo, but the publisher that had the actual property rights did. So publishing something doesn't mean you own the rights for life anymore then developing it as a team doesn't mean that. Who owns the property? That is likely going to resolve if such things will happen.
Last edited:
Hayabusabruh
Member
I have both bc. Are they enhanced for xb1x?
EDMIX
Member
Well yes, I agree with you my friend, thats my point. Who ever owns the IP clearly has control to make those things happen.
Great point. Thanks..
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
So you want a Bayonetta 2 that just has the name but is actually a wholly different game to the WiiU/Switch Bayonetta 2 just like that case you claim helps rather than argues against your point? I guess that could happen, again depending on the actual contracts, if the name isn't part of it. Thanks for acting dumb, lol.
www.techtimes.com
Oh look, all sorts of different parties had to actually deal with each other for this to happen, even though the GoldenEye/007 IP itself was with a single party, and the deal fell through (in another case, maybe Nintendo and everyone would have gone along with it, but that they even had to make a deal argues against your dumb shit).
Xbox Boss Explains Why Xbox 360 'GoldenEye 007' Remake Didn't Happen
Curious about why the 'GoldenEye 007' remake didn't happen? Well, Xbox boss Phil Spencer has already explained why, and it's not because of a 'getting code to run' issue.
www.techtimes.com
Last edited:
EDMIX
Member
The joke is at my expense and I got it lol
My comment stands. Unless the team owns the IP, their comments about exclusively is simply saying what the publisher wants the team to state to support some deal no different then Ken Levine's comments on Bioshock for PS3 or Shinji Mikami's comments on Resident Evil 4. Its why I don't put that much stock in those comments UNLESS the developer being talked about actually owns the IP. Then clearly we must accept what the owner of the IP is saying vs a developer simply saying what they are told to say by the owner of the IP or something.
EDMIX
Member
Nope. The example shows who owns the IP controls where the game goes, never stated anything about wanting it remade or as the name alone or as a different game or anything like that.
Relax on the personal attacks, we simply have different views on this. I'm not even sure why you are getting upset, the point you made literally is stating the owner of the IP has that control as to why that Goldeneye remake released and on many platforms yet didn't need Nintendo, Rare, MS involved etc. Keep in mind, such a deal isn't even the norm to try to argue this Bayonetta deal is anything like that or something. If anything you are agreeing that the IP owner has final say as what happened with 007 in the first place, which I do agree with you btw.
I don't block often, but we going to have to ignore going forward. I don't mind if we disagree, it happens, but no reason to assume, name call etc.
Last edited:
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Oh no, I'm gonna get blocked, by someone who doesn't block often, what a compelling argument, maybe I'll cry if you no longer quote me with oversizing all the wrong parts of my post in an effort to make another dumb non argument like all your posts in here. Keep believing you know better than Kamiya who owns the rights to Bayonetta 2 (again, nobody questions who has the rights to the IP itself, it's 100% irrelevant) because it was so hard to post "ask SEGA" instead of "ask Nintendo" and because completely different IP/games being handled differently means you have seen the contracts for Bayonetta 2 and 3 and you're totally right but it still hasn't happened 5+ years later (even though with the revitalized interest in the IP they've been porting the first wherever they could a while now).
Yes, the contracts COULD allow for a release, now or in the future, or Nintendo COULD consent even while they have the right (as they all almost came to an agreement regarding the original GoldenEye 007), for all you know Bayo 2 will release on PS5 this time next year, but that's the thing, you DON'T know, you just assume all is how you wish for it to be even though the only viable source has said multiple times so far that the decision lies with Nintendo when they could have easily said it lies with SEGA and you just want to ignore it all because completely different cases and scenarios were, duh, handled completely differently by different people. It's dumb even if the game does appear on other platforms (situations change after all, I never argued it's 100% certain to never appear elsewhere).
Yes, the contracts COULD allow for a release, now or in the future, or Nintendo COULD consent even while they have the right (as they all almost came to an agreement regarding the original GoldenEye 007), for all you know Bayo 2 will release on PS5 this time next year, but that's the thing, you DON'T know, you just assume all is how you wish for it to be even though the only viable source has said multiple times so far that the decision lies with Nintendo when they could have easily said it lies with SEGA and you just want to ignore it all because completely different cases and scenarios were, duh, handled completely differently by different people. It's dumb even if the game does appear on other platforms (situations change after all, I never argued it's 100% certain to never appear elsewhere).
Last edited:
Havoc2049
Member
Not the typical 4K/60 FPS treatment. The only versions that are currently 4k/60 FPS are the PC versions and soon the XB1X and PS4Pro versions.
Not sure about Vanquish, but Bayonetta does take advantage of the XB1X and eliminates screen tearing and does stay at a constant 720p/60FPS.
Bayonetta Hierarchy
1. PC, XB1X and PS4 Pro (4k/60FPS)*
2. PS4 and XB1 (1080p/60FPS)*
2. Backwards compatible XB1X (720p/60FPS)
3. Switch & Backwards compatible XB1 (720p/40-60FPS)
4. X360 & WiiU versions (720p/30-60FPS)
5. PS3 (720p/20-60 FPS)
*Assuming everything turns out ok on the programming side for the PS4 and XB1 remastered versions. Like most console games this gen, it could turn out that there are slight variances on performance depending on the hardware, since the XB1X is slightly more powerful than the PS4 Pro and the PS4 is slightly more powerful than the XB1.
Last edited:
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
There is a difference between Publishing a 3rd party game on your platform and having the publishing rights to an individual work.
Last edited:
Heimdall_Xtreme
Jim Ryan Fanclub's #1 Member
Chewie dont change at all in this picture
.I have already pre-order only for Vanquish...