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:
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.
you’re absolutely right. I forgot that this is a Sega bundle and not a Platinum Games bundle
Actually EDMIX 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.
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?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.
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.
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.
Edit: just saw the Nintendo today link. Straight from Kamiya himself.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.
ThanksAsk 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
MS likely setup a deal with EA in regards to allowing Mass Effect to come to other platforms
Funding the game is one thing but if someone owns the actual publishing rights
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.
? 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
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.
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?
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................EDMIX take: Nah, the IP owners, the developers, and the funding provider
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................
I think you missed the joke. Look at my post responding to Blood Borne, then look at EDMIX @ing me.Not sure what you're referencing there so ok?
Lots of words.
But the developers and the creator of the series strait up saying something "isn't as solid as you might think"...................
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!
I have both bc. Are they enhanced for xb1x?I see little reason to get these if you already own the 360 version and have a 1X.
Is there anything extra im missing?
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.
I think you missed the joke. Look at my post responding to Blood Borne, then look at EDMIX @ing me.
So you want a Bayonetta 2 that just has the name but is actually a different game to the WiiU/Switch Bayonetta 2 just like that case you claim helps rather than argues against your point? Thanks for acting dumb, lol, very compelling.
I have both bc. Are they enhanced for xb1x?
Publishing Stuffs