Forums - Gaming Discussion - What was the bigger loss for the gaming industry?

What was the bigger loss for the gaming industry?

Crash Bandicoot / Spyro 12 19.67%
 
Rare 49 80.33%
 
Total:61

What was the bigger loss for the gaming industry? Playstation losing the Crash Bandicoot and Spyro license or Nintendo losing Rare as developers?



Around the Network

PlayStation never had the Crash or Spyro licences in the first place, so they didn't "lose" them.

Besides, neither was a loss for the industry. Nintendo losing Rare was probably a gain actually. I know Rare have been pretty shit since they've been owned by MS, but they did make Kinect sports and the Kinect did help drive quite a few extra consoles which is definitely a gain for the industry.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Ka-pi96 said:
PlayStation never had the Crash or Spyro licences in the first place, so they didn't "lose" them.

Besides, neither was a loss for the industry. Nintendo losing Rare was probably a gain actually. I know Rare have been pretty shit since they've been owned by MS, but they did make Kinect sports and the Kinect did help drive quite a few extra consoles which is definitely a gain for the industry.

I knew that somebody would mention that... lol
You are right but I just wanted to keep it more simple for this thread.



Considering Rare's incredible output on N64 and their increasingly worsening output on XBOX-consoles i would say Nintendo losing Rare.



Nothing to see here, move along

Well Nintendo never lost Rare, Rare wanted to be sold off due to the lack of funding in there later years under Nintendo. Nintendo actually sold there 51% shares of Rare to MS who brought the entire 100% of the company. Activision were also front runners to obtain Nintendo's company.

To Nintendo is wasn't a loss as they were the ones to make the call and agree in selling them.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/08/rare_co-founder_has_no_idea_why_nintendo_didnt_buy_the_studio_outright

Nintendo weren't interested in owning Rare outright.

Stamper is at a loss as to why Nintendo didn't step in and open up its chequebook:

Stamper - "I've no idea why they didn't do that. I thought we were a good fit."

 

In terms of content, Crash and Spyro hold no light on Rare and there games. So Rare would be a huge loss in terms of games if I understand the comparison correctly.

Last edited by Azzanation - on 19 December 2018

Around the Network

Square and Enix fusion.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Sony losing exclusivity of Spyro and Crash wasn't "a loss for the industry". Rare not having Nintendo's guidance and hand-holding was a loss for Nintendo in terms of non-1st party software support, a loss for Rare itself, and a loss for the gaming industry as a whole.



Like others mentioned previously Sony never had any rights to either Crash or Spyro ...

If I had to say given that both Crash and Spyro see value today while Rare was in decline before Microsoft even purchased them, I'd say Playstation "losing" Crash and Spyro was the bigger loss since Rare probably won't have any lasting legacy to remember them by any longer ...



I would have to say Rare as the first one doesn't make sense.




Squaresoft becoming Square Enix.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909