curl-6 said:
naruball said:
curl-6 said:
Even if we assume that's the case, and Nintendo does not simply renew the exclusivity agreement upon its expiration to keep its exclusive secure, (when was the last time Nintendo let a game they funded and published go?) Microsoft and Sony already passed on the game when it was new, why would they fork out money for it once it's 5 years late? (to use Mass Effect 1's example)
Nintendo's not stupid enough to invest significant funds into the production of a game and then let it fall into the hands of its competitors. They would not have made such a financial commitment if they could not ensure exclusivity.
|
Just wanna clarify that though I think that what you say does make sense, my argument was against using the word fact in t-bone's repsonse. Neither is a fact. The only fact here is that Ninty funded Bayonetta 2. Whether it will at some point be released on a future console is something we can't be 100% sure about, hence it cannot be reffered to as a fact, but instead as a strong possibility (that it will be wiiu or ninty exclusive forever).
Also, @bolded like I said, they might have been able to make a sequel if they used kickstarter without sony or ms. They might still do so if their contract allows them to in a few years.
|
Fair enough, but for me it's too much of a stretch to believe that Nintendo would invest heavily in a game's development without securing exclusivity. They're not that stupid.
|
Hence that making it a strong possibility/ highly likely to be that case, yet not a fact.
