Yes and he asked if it would come to the ps4, Nintendo don't own the ip or any rights to the original game. No reason it couldn't, he's just being a prick again. No idea why people think it's acceptable behavior. 

Nintendo's deal with PG probably prevents Bayonetta games for coming out on other consoles. But last year Bayonetta 1 became backwards compatible on XBO so I'm not 100% if this is the case.

Nintendo own Bayonetta 2 & 3 but not 1. The first game can be put on anything Sega want it to be. However 2 & 3 will only go on a whatever system Nintendo wants it to be in. 

From what I gather Nintendo leases the rights to the IP from Sega and Sega gets a part of the royalties. Nintendo publishes the game and Platinum has its employees paid while they develop it. So no exclusivity = no game, because Sega doesnt want to publish it.

I feel like I went to sleep in 2018 and woke up back in 2012

Bayonetta 1 can come to the PS4 all day but there's a reason he says to ask Nintendo for Bayo 2... No Nintendo does not own the IP Bayonetta but because they are and have financed 2 and 3 they own the publishing rights. Nintendo puts Bayonetta in Smash and greenlights the 3rd installment even after the 2nd one did just okay. That proves they care about this franchise probably more than Sega does!

Now with all of these WiiU ports incoming can we please get W101 and a sequel announced for that game? While you're at it Nintendo do a complete fan service and announce another Kid Icarus game

Are you saying Resident Evil 1, Resident Evil 2 are bad games? 

Or for that matter Devil May Cry and Okami?

Because Nintendo funds the series development, the first game was commercial disaster for Sega it was in bargain bins with in weeks of release hence why not only them but every other publisher refused to fund the second game Nintendo then picked it up when they came to see PG about certain proposals like W101.

By funding the games Nintendo has the publishing rights to the second and now third game which is why Kamiya keeps telling people go ask Nintendo if they want the game on another platform.

You know what I find really random about this whole "they funded it" excuse?, the fact that we have gamers funding games over on PC, that sometimes make their way to more than just one platform. So why is it that a company can fund partly for game (I say partly, because they'd actually need a semi functional game to actually show that it's worth putting money into) is allowed to keep the game forever, while a crowd funded game is allowed to go wherever it wants to. You could sum up a crowd's worth of money to a company that managed to obtain a crowd's worth of money from past paying customers, I mean that's where the vast majority of money comes from in a business anyway (they can't all 100% rely on investors, let alone indefinitely), which is why I see both as being the same, only one is handled by a dev taking the money vs a company giving a dev money. 

I also find it rather backwards to release the first game across multiple platforms, and then seemingly cutting off all ties with everyone else. It's like selling a movie that's supported across all forms of DVD players, but then suddenly certain movies are only playable on only one type of DVD player, which limits how it can be played, let alone bought from.