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

Forums - Nintendo - Bayonetta 2 will flop hard

curl-6 said:
reggin_bolas said:
curl-6 said:

Mass Effect did not exist solely because of Microsoft's funding.

 

But funding alone doesn't make any sense. If we use contract law, and copyright law we may find a better answer. The IP owner has a right under copyrights to distribute the game. So unless Nintendo bought the IP rights to Bayonetta they can't have absolute control of future publishing and distribution. Under contract law, Nintendo can enter into a contract with the IP holder to secure exclusivity for a limited period of time. Most contracts have an end date so I assume this is what happened with Mass Effect exclusivity. Theoretically, the game should never have braced PS3 but it did because the contract expired or was re-negotiated (bought out by EA).  

So in conclusion, unless Nintendo bought the rights to the intellectual property it's more likely a timed exclusive. Whether Bayonetta 2 ends up on PS4/XB1 probably comes down to funding. Who will want to fork up money to re-distribute it or re-negotiate the contract? 

That's my take on the issue. 

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.


I'd say Sega would take over the financial responsibility just like EA took over for Mass Effect. I doubt Sony forked out cash for ME. 



Around the Network

Blah, blah, blah. Thats how I read the OP. Enough of these Wii U flop threads. Blah, blah, blah.



reggin_bolas 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.


I'd say Sega would take over the financial responsibility just like EA took over for Mass Effect. I doubt Sony forked out cash for ME. 

Sega already dumped it though. They'd only be interested in it if it sold really well on Wii U and proved itself to be a hot property they could make a mint on.



curl-6 said:
reggin_bolas said:
curl-6 said:

Mass Effect did not exist solely because of Microsoft's funding.

 

But funding alone doesn't make any sense. If we use contract law, and copyright law we may find a better answer. The IP owner has a right under copyrights to distribute the game. So unless Nintendo bought the IP rights to Bayonetta they can't have absolute control of future publishing and distribution. Under contract law, Nintendo can enter into a contract with the IP holder to secure exclusivity for a limited period of time. Most contracts have an end date so I assume this is what happened with Mass Effect exclusivity. Theoretically, the game should never have braced PS3 but it did because the contract expired or was re-negotiated (bought out by EA).  

So in conclusion, unless Nintendo bought the rights to the intellectual property it's more likely a timed exclusive. Whether Bayonetta 2 ends up on PS4/XB1 probably comes down to funding. Who will want to fork up money to re-distribute it or re-negotiate the contract? 

That's my take on the issue. 

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. 



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.



Around the Network
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.



naruball said:
curl-6 said:

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.

Almost nothing is an absolute fact. It's not an absolute fact that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's not an absolute fact that PS4's Destiny and Xbox One's Titanfall won't come to Wii U in the future, or that a meteorite won't fall on my head before I can post this message.



curl-6 said:
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

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.

Almost nothing is an absolute fact. It's not an absolute fact that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's not an absolute fact that PS4's Destiny and Xbox One's Titanfall won't come to Wii U in the future, or that a meteorite won't fall on my head before I can post this message.

Correct. But it is a fact that Ninty funded Bayonetta 2, right? ;) Or that it is a sequel to Bayonetta? Or that she has short hair in this one and longer in the first one. Or that it's developed by Platinum Games. I could go on, but I'm sure you see my point. 



naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Almost nothing is an absolute fact. It's not an absolute fact that the sun will come up tomorrow. It's not an absolute fact that PS4's Destiny and Xbox One's Titanfall won't come to Wii U in the future, or that a meteorite won't fall on my head before I can post this message.

Correct. But it is a fact that Ninty funded Bayonetta 2, right? ;) Or that it is a sequel to Bayonetta? Or that she has short hair in this one and longer in the first one. Or that it's developed by Platinum Games. I could go on, but I'm sure you see my point. 

Those are facts, yes. (Unless Platinum is just a front and Bayo 2 is acually being made by Miyamoto to fulfill his  lifelong desire to make a game about boobs :p ) Whenever something's not fact, I prefer to look at possibilities in terms of likelihood. Given the circumstances, the likelihood of Bayo 2 going to PS4/X1 is incredibly remote.



KylieDog said:

Lots of cancelled games get picked up by other studios.

Non-mainstream games with AAA budgets typically don't.