You have it the wrong way round sir. The fact that Wii U sales were give or take identical to the other versions gives "the fans who bought a Wii U just to play the game" a lot more to answer for.

Yeah, kinda like how it's for the best to keep RE4 on the Gamecube because it will be buried by the blockbuster GTA Audience? Terribad damage control.

Well as silly as I think they were. A lot of Wii U owners on here stated they boycotted the game in the end purely because of the delay to port it to other consoles.

I ended up buying it on Vita in the end as I loved Origins on that system more than PS3/360, it works great on the go, and now that it's patched, it's the definitive release until the XBONE version has more exclusive content next year.

Calling me an idiot won't help anything you're trying to defend. If "Sega owns the IP but Nintendo owns the game" then MS owns the game Ninja Gaiden 2 and it will only appear on MS consoles.

This sounds silly because that's exactly what it is. The situations are EXACTLY the same. Tecmo/Sega own NG/Bayonetta, Team Ninja/Platinum Games develop it, MS/Ninty publish it. Tell me how this is "different". I implore you to.

How can you own an IP....but not own it? How silly is it to say "Sega owns the Bayonetta IP but not the Bayonetta 2 game"? If a product has the name "Bayonetta" in it and has content associated to the Bayonetta series, then Sega owns it. Period. Platinum may develop it, Nintendo may give the funds to develop it, but Sega owns it. Otherwise, I can make a version of any copyrighted property and say "you may own it, but you don't own this iteration of it, even though it still uses your products name". Ever wonder why makers of Droid phones have LucasFilms on them? Because while Motorola makes the phone, and Google makes the OS, LucasFilms still owns the word "droid" , and if LucasFilms wanted it, they could have "Droid" phones for other phone makers. Because they own Droid and can do anything they want with it. And Motorola can't say "you may own the Droid IP, but we own the phone". No, LucasFilms owns the phone too. Just like Sega owns Bayonetta 2, and can do anything they want with it.

It makes 0 sense to believe that a property, owned 100% by Sega, is, at any level, not owned by Sega.

Isn't Team Ninja an internal Tecmo studio? They always held the rights to the game (they developed it) and the IP.

Microsoft published it in return for timed exclusivity. This is completely different to Microsoft actually funding the game development as Nintendo are for Bayonetta 2.

I think when this game releases for WiiU, we're going to see a shift in peoples attitudes about WiiU. Sales will improve, the hardcore will acknowledge it, and a mix of casual/hardcore gamers will buy a WiiU, even if it's a secondary console.

WiiU has the best exclusives.

I think the difference is that Nintendo might be fully funding the game(I said might, I have no concrete evidence, simply stating since Kamiya himself said the control is in Nintendo's hands and he knows the inner details better than us all hence my speculation,) which gives them 100% control over this particular game per contract whereas NG2 was mostly funded by Tecmo themselves. Nintendo might even own the rights to the source code, but is just my speculation which has no real merit of course.

gta is just for running round and punching hookers(i realy like that, but it could need a lot more of the postal humor) ps360 wasnt a good place for not aaa titles bayo sold 2m on bot system. not so much on 160m installbase...

mb nintendo sould pay for some more smaller games... i wanna have some suda51 stuff on wii u...

Nope. SEGA owns the IP, wich means anything with the name Bayonetta requires their aproval to be released. Yet, they do not own the Bayonetta 2 property wholy themselves. The Bayonetta 2 project is funded by and its rights are held together with Nintendo.

Your example is poor. A good example would be Metal Gear Solid The twin snakes for GC. IP belongs to konami, but the game belongs to Nintendo. Nintendo cant re-release the game without konami's consent and konami cant re-release the game without Nintendo's consent. Silicon knights in this case held no rights aswell as the developer.

It's a "reimagining", but the fact remains the the property "Goldeneye 007" was published and licensed by Nintendo, and they gave up both publishing and licensing that property, which answered your question of when has Ninty done that.

And yes, it may have been called "Goldeneye 007" as a cash in, being a "reimagining" of the 64 game, but it is a fact that if Nintendo still owned that property, Activision wouldn't be able to use that property's name. It's just how copyright works. The fact that any game not published by Nintendo, called "Goldeneye 007" is a testament that Nintendo gave up the publishing rights to Goldeneye 007.

And mods, please don't moderate this comment or penalize. I forgot what the limit was for quoted comments, but I don't feel like screwing around with the HTML trying to make the comment look correct. The last couple times I've simply tried to delete a box in the quote thread, it disorients the comment, puts the deleted box outside of the rest of the quote and make the comment just one long mess