how can Nintendo being cool with this tho? are they[PG] paying the two Eternal Darkness's patent feed? is Nintendo ok with them using ED name to promote this "spiritual successor" game?
-
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.
Precursor Games Bought Art Assets From Silicon Knights, Nintendo "wished them luck".
- Thread starter Mama Robotnik
- Start date
how can Nintendo being cool with this tho? are they[PG] paying the two Eternal Darkness's patent feed? is Nintendo ok with them using ED name to promote this "spiritual successor" game?
StreetsAhead
Member
Interestingly, NST has been hiring a bit recently and seems to be split into two teams: the Mario & DK/Crossword Team, and the other team that hasn't done anything yet, with the guy from ND who made Sonic.
Bolded is a bold faced lie.
Mama Robotnik
Member
Dem loopholes, they are jumping through them.
We don't know enough of the game to know if they need the patents.
Nothing Nintendo can do, they are doing nothing wrong by saying it's a spiritual follow up, and the fact is these men did create Eternal Darkness, and they have every right to say so.
Is it? I apologize if so. However that was a common thing said, where did it come from? A mag rumor or something?
Would be only logical after they went from a hardcore franchise to something family-friendly like DKCR and supporting MK7. I dont think they'll do the next Wii Fit.
Thanks. I can never figure out how to post tweets.
I would agree that they could, but even their hirings of artist from Darksiders and another Hardcore project still doesn't really scream casual fair to me.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I'm only familiar with American law on business entities, so Canadian law may differ (particularly in procedural details), but I suspect that the basic concepts are the same:
To begin, not every business is a legal entity separate from its owner. If I go out tomorrow and open a lemonade stand (or coffee shop, or McDonald's franchise, or whatever), without more, I'm operating the business as a sole proprietorship. The assets I use in the business, and the liabilities I incur in the business, are mine. If somebody sues the business and wins, they could take all my property, whether it's used in the business or not (subject to some significant legal restrictions; for instance, where I live, a person's home is protected against seizure for most types of debt).
However, it is possible to operate the business through a corporation, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or similar business entity. Such entities (1) are treated as though they actually exist apart from the owner(s) of the business and (2) have their own assets and liabilities apart from the owner(s). (These days, a general partnership is also considered to exist apart from its owners--the partners--but each partner is liable for the liabilities of the partnership.) As a consequence, if somebody sues Metaphoreus, Inc. and wins, they could only take the property that belongs to Metaphoreus, Inc., and not property that belongs to me.
Typically, the legal existence of a business entity offering asset protection to its owner(s) begins when a document (sometimes called Articles of Incorporation or a Certificate of Formation) is filed with the state (again, in the U.S.) government. Thus, from the moment that document is filed with the government, the entity exists and can transact business. The entity will continue to exist until the owners of the entity determine to end its existence, or its existence is forfeited for some reason (for instance, because it failed to pay taxes due). Even bankruptcy (which is a formal court proceeding, not this) will typically not end the existence of the entity.
Finally, here's a link that looks at the advantages and disadvantages of available business structures in Canada.
ArchedThunder
Banned
Despite being more colorful, DKCR is a pretty damn hardcore game. Plus Retro requested Donkey Kong, not the other way around.
they can say "the creators of Eternal Darkness"
They can't say that it is a "spiritual successor" with the name of the IP when they don't own such IP. imo
I am not a lawyer tho, so I dunno how that work..
I wonder if this is the big potential roadblock. Legal issues in general are one thing. Nintendo has had it's fair share of them. In the past and currently. The misuse of money on the other hand has got to be a red flag. Even if the higher ups like Iwata were willing to take a chance to have the IP given new life no way in hell would Nintendo legal and budgeting be okay with it. That's likely to make investors flip out.
Implication that the game is a sequel most likely would be a no-no as well. That's got to cause a problem.
I agree DKC is a hardcore game. That and considering NoJ is letting Monolith follow up Xenoblade with X, I just find it weird that Iwata will force a casual game on to Retro.
A follow up and not a new IP? Totally see that, but nothing casual or Family Friendly unless Retro choose it.
This has happened several times in the industry and it's never proved to be an issue before, I can't imagine how it could here even if Nintendo didn't like it.
So long as they aren't using Eternal Darkness in marketing materials outside of the name they aren't actually using Nintendo's Ip to sell their product.
ArchedThunder
Banned
And even saying "the creators of Eternal Darkness" wouldn't be accurate because they aren't the same company and the vast majority of the people who worked on Eternal Darkness are not at Precursor games.
It definitely won't be a casual game.
Denis Dyack and Ken McCulloch conceived and wrote Eternal Darkness. They are the creators, and they both work at Precursor.
Worked pretty well for Dark Souls.
It is not about opinions anyway, it is not hard to assume that they had a lawyer or several lawyers triple check everything before starting work on it, let alone announcing it.
You would think legally as well they wouldn't want to connect themselves with SK as well. Other wise it makes it seem like some ploy to hid assets and not comply with court orders.
1. The point that Shiggy is making, is that Iwata would not put such an important studio on a new game or franchise that does not have mass-market/million-selling appeal. Eternal Darkness 2, a niche horror game, would not be high priority when that team could be working on something else.
2. Maybe Retro requested DK because their previous proposals for original IPs or the Sheik-spinoff had failed?
I mean, we have no idea what's going on. And I also don't see how the greenlight of two Fatal Frame games, Xenoblade, Sin&Punishment 2, Zangeki no Reginleiv, Pandora's Tower and The Last Story fit in with Shiggy's view on Iwata/NCL.
Maybe they were cheap, and it was a way to still get some hardcore support for the "dying" Wii. But right now we're early WiiU lifecycle. The most important thing above all is to create games that sell consoles and lots of consoles. ED2 is not that kind of game.
Give me an example of a spiritual successor of an IP which is alive and another company made
I agree. It being more approachable or apart of an Ip that isn't dark? Sure, we saw this kinda thing with Kid Icarus, but in no way is that anything but a hardcore game.
A good fraudulent conveyance or true sale lawyer should get on this case. I'm sure epic can afford one. If SK is insolvent or was insolvent at the time of asset purchase, there could be serious issues if they bought from a sub or SPV.
Anyone who contributes to this kickstarter thing is insane.
Anyone who contributes to this kickstarter thing is insane.
you are probably right... hmm
Dark Souls.
Demon's Souls is Sony's, but From Software talked at length about how it Dark Souls was following up on Demon's Souls and the things they learned from that game and was improving upon them for Dark Souls.
I don't think we need to discuss which game is more appealing to families, MP or DKC.
Also, you should not just keep an eye on what you hear through official channels. It's well known that very influential persons at Retro were not interested in DKC and the internal struggles around mid 2008 make it evident that there's more to it. In the end, DKC was one of many prototypes on both Wii and DS which perfectly fit together with Nintendo's focus on family friendly and established franchises.
What I don't get is that Nintendo still greenlights some really hardcore games from Japan. Why not in Europe or the US? They even have trouble in getting their Japanese hardcore titles over...
I read the previous post, I did't know about it.
Mama Robotnik
Member
Many thanks for this information - and to the others who have contributed their insight.
Why? Nobody is buying a stake in the company. It's five bucks or more to support the development of a sequel to a game we really want to see.
SK didn't buy anything. They sold the assets. Unless the assets were sold substantially below value, I don't think there should be an issue.
Epic shouldn't care. They don't want the art assets. It's useless to them. The money from the transaction is a lot more useful. If anything, they should be happy with this sale.
A PC version would serve as a nice 'safety-net' in the likely scenario that the Wii U version doesn't sell adequately(probably the only concession Nintendo made in this 'mutual' agreement). Nintendo wouldn't have to worry about a PC version cannibalizing Wii U sales the way competing consoles would, and in addition, it gives them a rare opportunity to gauge how the Eternal-Darkness-inspired fanbase is responding/growing. Highly positive results would justify putting those recently renewed ED rights to use, in the form a full-fledged AAA sequel.
Or something like that...
I don't think there's an issue with saying, "From the creators of" as long as there is some truth to it even if that development studio no longer exists. I mean, it is technically true that there are former Silicon Knights staff members at Precursor Games, and apparently they are among the main guys that gave birth to Eternal Darkness. Yes, it is a bit deceiving because it's not the same exact studio making this "spiritual sequel," but Precursor has made its situation known. Besides, most gamers are ignorant about what game studio makes which games. If anything, they may be aware of the publisher, but not the actual game studio behind it. Heck, some people probably think Nintendo developed Eternal Darkness.
Maybe not?
Unlike many years, their last fiscal report didn't actually list SK if I remember right.
oh really? can anyone confirmed this?
What was Sphear?
Hey guys, do you remember when someone said that SK had "less than five employees, including Dyack"? I've always thought that was an odd way to phrase it. Why not "four or less, including Dyack"? I mean, less than five automatically means four, doesn't it?
http://www.precursorgames.com/team/Denis-Dyack/
http://www.precursorgames.com/team/Denis-Dyack/
That's five. Do cats count as "lesser" employees? Because that would mean "less than five" without meaning four.
I hear gullible isn't in the dictionary
Actually it is, along with cynical and closed-minded.
I didn't say SK bought anything; the problem is obviously on the sale side (hence my comment on "true sale" and fraudulent conveyance).
From everything I've heard about Hammer, the game was a mess and Nintendo decided to pull the plug on it. I don't think Wii Sports had much to do with it, considering NST wasn't even tasked to work on casual junk either.
You forgot the part where they wasted Ontario taxpayer dollars, but almost spot on.
ShadowgeistX
Member
So, am I a little crazy in thinking that it's somewhat suspicious that Dyack is listed right under the CEO? I mean, technically the COO is second after the CEO, by rights. Or do I have that wrong? It seems like that list is in order otherwise.
As much as I loved ED, I don't think I'm going to contribute to this at all lol.
As much as I loved ED, I don't think I'm going to contribute to this at all lol.
StreetsAhead
Member
Well, there was Wii Crush.
Mama Robotnik
Member
I thought they never actually got that. Am I incorrect?
Nope, you're right.
Ontario put their wallet back into their pocket and backed away slowly.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...ed-by-canadian-government-withholding-funding
Goes to show how bad NST is/was when they couldn't get that thing going either. That was announced and canned quite a few years later though wasn't it? I hope the recent hires help them out, they should have something to show considering they brought that ex Sonic/Naughty Dog guy into the place. Seems like a waste of a name and talent otherwise.
God damn. Nintendo really does know best. Too Human was so fucking boring to play. Silicon Knights really should have just stuck with Nintendo and worked on a new IP. Honestly, whoever made the final decision for Silicon Knights to leave Nintendo caused the start of their downward spiral which led to their demise.
StreetsAhead
Member
Stephen Mortimer directed the Crosswords Plus and (it seems) Mario & Donkey Kong: Minis on the Move, while Hirokazu Yasuhara and Masamichi Abe have been quiet. It seems like there's two teams.
Mama Robotnik
Member
I agree completely.
The company had got so fucking lucky. When so many PSX/Saturn small developers had gone bust, Silicon Knights had been picked up by Nintendo, the financially-secure highly-respected pillar of the industry.
They had funding, development time, experienced guidance, devkits, Nintendo resources, Nintendo marketing, and enjoyed an increasingly prestigious profile. With Nintendo's help, they nailed Eternal Darkness, and with Shigeru Miyamoto's personal recommendation, they were trusted with exclusive access to the high profile AAA Metal Gear franchise. Dyack and Nintendo were jointly-signing patents. There were talks of future collaborations with Kojima! Fans were naming them as potential Zelda developers. A sequel to Eternal Darkness was begged for! What more could they have hoped for?
And they left...?!
My God. What in the Hell were they thinking? Were the fancy graphics of the 360 really worth it?
ShockingAlberto
Member
Where you say Nintendo helped them nail Eternal Darkness, Dyack seemingly felt Nintendo was interfering with his baby. He would probably use the word "despite" rather than "because."
The Wii gave him the excuse to leave - Nintendo wasn't interested in the games he wants to make (which was true, from 2004 to 2008 or so, Nintendo was absolutely against the games Dyack wanted to make), so he left. From his own perspective, it probably seemed like the right move. The problem was that he wasn't smart or talented enough at business (or management) to go anywhere but down.