By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JustBeingReal on 21 January 2016
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
JustBeingReal said:

Sega didn't cancel Bayonneta 2, because they couldn't, they were only the publisher at that time and they didn't even come out and make any officiel statement confirming that had happened.

Bayonetta couldn't have been a huge AAA budget project, due to the size of Platinum Games, how they portion up resources and how many projects they make at once. When a studio like From Software uses more staff to make a Souls game and similar sales to Bayonetta, but continues to make these games it's doubtful they'd do that if they weren't making money.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/sega-sammy-posts-profits-bayonetta-platinum/1100-6262538/

That article states specifically that Bayonetta was Sega's only hit that year, it's well known that Sega had to undergo a restructure at the time, which is why they didn't publish Bayonetta and why the game was placed on hold.

A few million units are fine sales for games that have way bigger budgets than Bayonetta did, it makes no sense to say that those sales for a sequel wouldn't have been desireable and to say that taking a chance on making the game for one unproven platform is more desireable by itself, instead of a proven level of sales across two platforms is not very logical from a business perspective.

As I keep saying Nintendo have partnered for way more than a single exclusive, in fact it's 6 exclusives being made by Platinum Games, vs one on XB1 and one on PS4. Most likely Nintendo and Platinum Games had made an agreement for multiple projects, with one of those games being Bayonetta 2.

Businesses think of the wider view, not just about one game in a vacuum.

That article never technically confirmed that Bayonetta was profitable, just that sales passed a million. Again, games have sold better than Bayonetta and lost money. Profits in the gaming sector could just as easily have come from the ongoing sales of the hugely popular Mario & Sonic at the Winter Olympics on Wii and DS, which the article cites as passing the 6 million mark that year.

If PS3/360 were such a lucrative market for Bayonetta, that's where the second would have gone. Instead, they had to turn to Nintendo to get the second game made at all.

In the end, Platinum's official word carries more weight than unproven speculation to the contrary.

 

The article specifically stated that Bayonetta was Sega's best seller that year, ergo it's biggest money maker. Games selling better than Bayonetta had larger budgets, because they require more development resources.

As I keep saying Platinum Games spread themselve thinner than other companies do.

Platinum's word, with no logical basis isn't very believable. Them having a long standing partnership with Nintendo and not so much with the other platform holders isn't speculation, it's observable fact. Sony and MS investing in way less proven entities shows Platinum's comment about them being turned down by either of those companies to make no sense.

Sony doesn't care about every game being lucrative, but as I've said before more expensive investments have sold similar units and they've been fine to continue investing. Namco has too, same goes for Microsoft. Publishers make huge risks all the time, a game that doesn't require huge scale AAA development and moves a few million units is profitable.

 

This whole narrative of Platinum being turned down and Nintendo being the saviour makes no sense, nothing from any angle supports Platinum's statement. What doesn't make sense is Platinum having more business from Nintendo and a stronger business relationship, them beginning life as a company making exclusives for Nintendo, then continuing to have a longer relationship and Bayonetta being part of a bigger business picture is the most logical conclusion.