By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave on 03 November 2014
Edit Thread
Ka-pi96 said:
Soundwave said:
DanneSandin said:
All this really is, is a pipe dream.

Disney wouldn't be too thrilled by having their games on ONE console, I'd imagine. Just consider for a moment that they have shut down their own development studios and have licensed Star Wars to EA; they obviously don't care about gaming all that much. But I wager they'd like to sell as many games to as many people as possible, hence why they've always been 3rd party.

And besides, it wouldn't be possible for Nintendo either; they simply don't have the man power to produce that many games. C'mon, they're struggling to release a few games a year on the Wii U.


They'd be free to make games on other consoles. Just that on the Nintendo platform, Nintendo would fund/finance those games (or co-finance them with Disney). 

It's not really different from the Star Wars deal that Nintendo had in the 1990s where they got exclusive Star Wars games, but there were still other Star Wars games on other systems. 

Nintendo could has staffed up lately, but they could set up a studio to just work on Marvel games (200-300 people). It's a worthwhile investment as I think the game's would all be profitable, so why not. It's not like you're banking on some highly risky IP that you're sure people will like ... people like Iron Man, people like the Guardians of the Galaxy, people like Star Wars (well the OT anyway) ... these are not even in question.

Besides it's not like Disney is exactly picky about what they license their character IP out too, lol. They stick their characters on any piece of crap they can think of for licensing purposes, a deal with Nintendo would just be another day of the week for Disney.  

I don't think you really get it. Disney don't make games themselves, they licence those rights out. Sure, Nintendo could buy those rights, but they would be incredibly expensive to get exclusive rights especially the kind of long term deal you are thinking about and if they aren't exclusive rights... well then, it wouldn't really help much. Also, you mentioned co funding. Why would Disney want to do that when there are plenty of others that are willing to just pay Disney for the rights to make a game and then fund it completely by themselves?

I don't think they're *that* expensive. LEGO licenses out the Marvel IP so do smaller third parties. 

It would be expensive if Nintendo was asking for full exclusivity over the license, but obviously they wouldn't. 

You're right about the co-financing ... Nintendo should just finance the games themselves. They have billions sitting in the bank they don't need Disney's financing to make games. They would probably have to add a big Western studio to be able to pump out enough games, I'm thinking a new studio in Seattle or LA with 200-300 people + perhaps beefing up Retro Studios even further so they could work on Marvel IP now and again too. 

Even if there is an oppurtunity cost, the fact is all these games (if high quality enough) would make Nintendo money even factoring in the cost of licensing the characters *AND* expand Nintendo's portfolio appeal. 

A Guardians of the Galaxy series of games can be as much of a "killer app" to even the player who loves GTA5 and Halo and doesn't care for Mario, and it can appeal just as well to the 12-year-old who loves Mario and Pokemon. The fact that there are no good video games being made around these properties is a huge missed oppurtunity by this industry really.