By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - A Full, Concise Explanation On Bayonetta's Publishing Rights And Long Development.

vivster said:
SpokenTruth said:

Bayo 2 was offered to both Sony and MS plus a few other publishers and they all turned it down.  Nintendo was then approached and they said yes.

Source?

Go read Kamiya tweets in 2012-2013. Do your own homework. You have had 6 damn years to find this info yourself. So do it.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
vivster said: 

I don't need an explanation why Nintendo wanted it, that's self apparent. The question is why Platinum needed it so badly that it couldn't have been done with any other publisher or at a later date. "They like Nintendo" doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation since he just explained that they're basically willing to do business with anyone who has money.

It seems Nintendo was just a convenient way to get quick money and so they were fine with compromising on their vision and throwing their fanbase under the bus. I just want to hear that from his mouth. Making a game exclusive to a specific platform is never the best option for any game.

Nintendo was basically the last company Platinum was considering. Sega didn't want to fund Bayonetta 2 on their own, neither Sony or Microsoft wanted to fund it. Platinum was at the point where either Nintendo got the copyright or no sequel could be made. Since Kamiya is passionate about his games, being able to make a sequel is preferable to not being able to make one.

By the way, throwing a fanbase under the bus means to turn down the only option for a sequel for a petty reason, so exactly the opposite of what you insinuate.

I'm still waiting if someone can provide a source of which publishers they exactly approached. I heard something of Sony and Microsoft but I don't know about other publishers. I will concede that point if someone finds a reliable source for that. If they really approached a number of other publishers before they saw themselves forced to go with Nintendo, that's fair game.

Though it does not really explain why it had to be done at that point and couldn't wait until they find a better offer. It's not like IPs suddenly evaporate if you don't make games for them in 3 years.

That's also where my comment about throwing their fans under the bus comes from. I believe the majority of fans would have been happy to wait for a sequel if that had meant being able to enjoy the game on more platforms than some very specific ones. How is going for Nintendo the only option forever? Some games have to be pitched 20 times over years to be greenlit by publishers.

I don't buy this "Nintendo saved Bayonetta" crap as if the IP was at any point in danger of dying. It's a cult hit, you can pick that up whenever you like.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

I'm pretty sure he already explained this years ago but only the asshole replies ever got threads made about them
https://mynintendonews.com/2014/10/01/kamiya-says-multiple-publishers-turned-down-bayonetta-2/



Chazore said:
SegataSanshiro said: Since they own the code Nintendo decided where Bayonetta 2 and 3 go. Kamiya has said it multiple times. If you want 2 and 3 on Sony or MS systems, Ask Nintendo. You may as well ask for Mario on PS4. Get over it.

I'm over it, and was a long time ago. I'm just trying to clear things up for you, because you seem to greatly misunderstand what ownership of an IP brand truly means. 


Also, the same applies right back at you. No need to beg for other titles, just get the system they are released on, simple as.

Ownership of a brand is one thing but there's also ownership of individual assets. Which this case seems to be much about. SEGA owns the rights to the IP but Nintendo owns the right to some or all assets.

SEGA probably could make a Bayonetta 2 for other platforms but they'd have to do it without all of the assets owned by Nintendo, which could mean they'd have to redo everything. They might also have to redesign the game to avoid copyright issues. And, it might also be bad for their continued relationship with Nintendo.



RolStoppable said:

The misunderstanding is on your part and has been for a long time.

I don't think so Rol. 



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
vivster said:

I'm still waiting if someone can provide a source of which publishers they exactly approached. I heard something of Sony and Microsoft but I don't know about other publishers. I will concede that point if someone finds a reliable source for that. If they really approached a number of other publishers before they saw themselves forced to go with Nintendo, that's fair game.

Though it does not really explain why it had to be done at that point and couldn't wait until they find a better offer. It's not like IPs suddenly evaporate if you don't make games for them in 3 years.

That's also where my comment about throwing their fans under the bus comes from. I believe the majority of fans would have been happy to wait for a sequel if that had meant being able to enjoy the game on more platforms than some very specific ones. How is going for Nintendo the only option forever? Some games have to be pitched 20 times over years to be greenlit by publishers.

I don't buy this "Nintendo saved Bayonetta" crap as if the IP was at any point in danger of dying. It's a cult hit, you can pick that up whenever you like.

Get over it and buy a Switch already.

Platinum Games has provided the answers to each of your questions over the past several years and you're still in the early stages of grief because you failed to look up your own questions.

So you're saying nobody can provide a source? I mean if you and anyone else on here can't, how would I be able to do it?

I do own a Switch and I do own a Wii U and I do own Bayonetta 2 for Wii U. I played Bayonetta 2 for Wii U until I threw it away in disgust. I will certainly not touch Bayonetta 3 until I get a Bayonetta 2 that actually lives up to what Bayonetta is supposed to be. A fast paced, responsive spectacle fighter.

Call it grief if you must but as far as I'm concerned, Bayonetta got a treatment that it didn't deserve. And that's apparently eternally going to stay this way, so I'm going to eternally complain about it.

I don't like the decision Platninum made with Bayonetta and I think it's fair to complain about it as a consumer and as a fan of the first game.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

I'm still waiting if someone can provide a source of which publishers they exactly approached. I heard something of Sony and Microsoft but I don't know about other publishers. I will concede that point if someone finds a reliable source for that. If they really approached a number of other publishers before they saw themselves forced to go with Nintendo, that's fair game.

Though it does not really explain why it had to be done at that point and couldn't wait until they find a better offer. It's not like IPs suddenly evaporate if you don't make games for them in 3 years.

That's also where my comment about throwing their fans under the bus comes from. I believe the majority of fans would have been happy to wait for a sequel if that had meant being able to enjoy the game on more platforms than some very specific ones.

I don't buy this "Nintendo saved Bayonetta" crap as if the IP was at any point in danger of dying. It's a cult hit, you can pick that up whenever you like.

There's no precedence that I can think of right now where a development studio approached a different third party publisher from the one who owns the IP to successfully get a sequel funded. There's also no precedence of third party publishers teaming up to continue a failed IP of one of them. That's the kind of scenario where only console manufacturers are realistic options, because adding an exclusive game to their lineup makes sense in a business context, unlike in the two previously mentioned examples.

Why it had to be done is because there's no precedence of a single entry third party IP receiving a sequel way down the line, at least I can't think of any. Continually rising development costs make it all the more unlikely that a dormant IP that had only one game gets revived eventually.

For whatever reason I never had any trouble accepting Bayonetta 2 becoming exclusive to Nintendo so I never thought about it that way. I suppose that Platinum asking Squeenix or Capcom to fund their SEGA game is a bit hard to imagine.



"Would Bayonetta 2 not exist without Nintendo? The answer is yes," says Atsushi Inaba, executive director at Platinum Games.

https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/9/22/3371474/bayonetta-2-would-not-exist-without-nintendo-platinum-games-wii-u

 

“Without funding, we didn’t have the possibility to continue development, but we wanted to get this partially developed Bayonetta 2 available to the public one way or another. So we offered it to various publishers, but as it is a big title, we couldn’t find a partner company. Finally, Bayonetta 2 was about to get terminated completely, when…”

“Nintendo came in and lent a hand and we were able to restart the development we so desired. Finally, the game was released last week, so in five years, we were able to make Bayonetta 2 available to the public.”

“Knowing those circumstances, if someone is still angry for heading towards Nintendo, I wonder what’s the reason for that, wouldn’t you tell me in a way that is easy to understand?”

“As I have said earlier, 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…”

https://mynintendonews.com/2014/10/01/kamiya-says-multiple-publishers-turned-down-bayonetta-2/

 

神谷英樹 Hideki Kamiya @PG_kamiya Ask Sega/Ninty. RT @lumpy_space16 Soo could you just remaster Bayonetta 1 for the xbox one and ps4, oh and btw, would a bayo 2 port still be

 

People can deny it all they want but Platinum literally says Nintendo saved Bayonetta. Also Did anyone really want MS to fund it? That worked out well for Scalebound.

 

If anyone wants the tweets missing in the OP they are here https://twitter.com/i/moments/963271450370236416



vivster said:
SegataSanshiro said:

Sony and MS didn't want to fund Bayo 2. Nintendo needed some 3rd party exclusives for Wii U, knowing it would not sell in the millions but hoping it would help rid of the Nintendo is just for casuals rep Wii built. (Also why they funded the failed Devil's Third and even published Ninja Gaiden III on Wii U) . Now that Bayonetta appeared in 4 games on Wii U, Bayo 1, Bayo 2, Wonderful 101 and Smash. This time Nintendo just wanted more Bayo. Someone at Nintendo likes the series and Platinum began making games on Nintendo systems with MadWorld, Infinite space (and Wonderful 101 and Scalebound began as Wii games) Platinum likes working with Nintendo and Nintendo likes working with them. Not a difficult concept to understand.

 

 

OTBWY said:

They wanted a big exclusive title for the WiiU. From a third party company. That's the only explanation.

I don't need an explanation why Nintendo wanted it, that's self apparent. The question is why Platinum needed it so badly that it couldn't have been done with any other publisher or at a later date. "They like Nintendo" doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation since he just explained that they're basically willing to do business with anyone who has money.

It seems Nintendo was just a convenient way to get quick money and so they were fine with compromising on their vision and throwing their fanbase under the bus. I just want to hear that from his mouth. Making a game exclusive to a specific platform is never the best option for any game.

Very simple on Platinum's side.

- Free money to make game.
- Free money to make game for new Nintendo HD system.
- Free money to make game for new Nintendo HD system that looked exciting for them at the time.



RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

I'm still waiting if someone can provide a source of which publishers they exactly approached. I heard something of Sony and Microsoft but I don't know about other publishers. I will concede that point if someone finds a reliable source for that. If they really approached a number of other publishers before they saw themselves forced to go with Nintendo, that's fair game.

Though it does not really explain why it had to be done at that point and couldn't wait until they find a better offer. It's not like IPs suddenly evaporate if you don't make games for them in 3 years.

That's also where my comment about throwing their fans under the bus comes from. I believe the majority of fans would have been happy to wait for a sequel if that had meant being able to enjoy the game on more platforms than some very specific ones.

I don't buy this "Nintendo saved Bayonetta" crap as if the IP was at any point in danger of dying. It's a cult hit, you can pick that up whenever you like.

There's no precedence that I can think of right now where a development studio approached a different third party publisher from the one who owns the IP to successfully get a sequel funded. There's also no precedence of third party publishers teaming up to continue a failed IP of one of them. That's the kind of scenario where only console manufacturers are realistic options, because adding an exclusive game to their lineup makes sense in a business context, unlike in the two previously mentioned examples.

Why it had to be done is because there's no precedence of a single entry third party IP receiving a sequel way down the line, at least I can't think of any. Continually rising development costs make it all the more unlikely that a dormant IP that had only one game gets revived eventually.

It certainly is a curious case. One would think that SEGA had done a little bit more here.

I don't doubt that Platinum felt themselves to be in a hopeless position when it comes to the IP. You say that it's hard to pitch an old IP to anyone but console publishers, does that mean you think it's easier to pitch a new IP? Because that was also an option they could've taken. An option that I would've preferred greatly. I mean they did that with W101 and that's fine. But you have to understand that it's always a critical thing of moving an IP away from its fans as a way to "save" it. At that point you didn't really save the IP, but just your own game, disregarding the people who actually enjoyed it.

Kamiya probably had all of the good intentions (or not) but that doesn't cure the bad taste this decision left in most people's mouths.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.