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

Forums - Nintendo - Platinum Games Creative Director is Fed Up With Bayonetta 2 port begging

STRYKIE on 12 December 2013
generic-user-1 said:
STRYKIE said:
z101 said:


People who still begging for a port are truly not very clever (dumb as bread).

Anyway a niche game like Bayoentta 2 fits better to the Wii U audience than to the blockbuster CoD-Audience.


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.

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...

So what you're saying is, the Nintendo contingent are only interested in playing games that just so happen to be exclusive to one platform? That's quite an unhealthy endeavor...

 

Besides, niche core platforms =/= better exposure, look at Okami.



Bet with Einsam_Delphin: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=172355&page=11

Around the Network
STRYKIE on 12 December 2013
MikeRox said:
STRYKIE said:
MikeRox said:
Like all those people ran out and bought Rayman Legends on PS3 and 360 as soon as Ubisoft stopped screwing over their audience by not keeping it a Wii U exclusive?

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.


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.

Alas, if they truly were fans of the series, they wouldn't be inclined to do that would they? I myself am still waiting to see how many of them could tell me without hesitation they'd be interested in TVC2 should it be a full multiplatform release.



Bet with Einsam_Delphin: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=172355&page=11

BMaker11 on 12 December 2013
Nem said:


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 with 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.

 

 And yet the game Metal Gear Solid 1, as we recognize it, is on more than one platform. Nintendo may own "The Twin Snakes" but then I just go back to my point about a possible Bayonetta 2: Complete Edition, if that were to ever happen. Konami may not be able to re-release Twin Snakes without Ninty's permission, but they can still re-release Metal Gear Solid (and they have, multiple times). Recognition that Twin Snakes is remake of MGS is a key factor here. Let's say Ninty owns Bayonetta 2. They don't own a possible "Complete Edition" remake, which Sega could release.
 

 



fatslob-:O on 12 December 2013
justinian said:
fatslob-:O said:
Podings said:
fatslob-:O said:
Cj2i3 said:
fatslob-:O said:
Does anyone actually care about it ?

About what? Bayonetta 2? Clearly some do,

I'm sincerely glad it isn't coming to BoneStation I'd make the same mistake buying 2 as I did with 1.

Bayonetta 2 is a largely irrelevant game. A third party game only matters if it can move consoles an I doubt bayonetta 2 will do the job. It's not gonna be as bad as wonderful 101 but still. 

 

Bayonetta 2 is in no way irrelevant.

It's a third party game, maybe, but it is one that Nintendo funds and publishes, which means they reap ALL the profits from sales.

It will make itself back in both the sales and the platform awareness it generates, the magnitude of the latter being obvious. 

Also "as bad as Wonderful 101" is kind of a moot statement. It too has made a profit from sales, and a helping drive awareness among core players.

ROFLMAO. Apparently someone hasn't being keeping up with development cost news. Wonderful 101 was 50% more expensive to make compared to bayonetta 1 which didn't even net in profit with roughly around 2 million coppies.

Apparently someone hasn't been keeping up with sales news. Bayonetta sold around 1m copies total according to all sources.

This net profit argument is a strange one. I have long heard people argue that a x360 game that sold 500k to 1m+ make a profit but I will not argue this point.

Anyhow my question is why all this fuss over a game that sold only 1m copies across two platforms? Either way this game is damn relevant to nintendo because if it flops..

All sources except for vgchartz LMAO.



Nem on 12 December 2013
BMaker11 said:
Nem said:


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 with 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.

 

 

 

 And yet the game Metal Gear Solid 1, as we recognize it, is on more than one platform. Nintendo may own "The Twin Snakes" but then I just go back to my point about a possible Bayonetta 2: Complete Edition, if that were to ever happen. Konami may not be able to re-release Twin Snakes without Ninty's permission, but they can still re-release Metal Gear Solid (and they have, multiple times). Recognition that Twin Snakes is remake of MGS is a key factor here. Let's say Ninty owns Bayonetta 2. They don't own a possible "Complete Edition" remake, which Sega could release.

 

 


Yes, you could have a re-imagining of Bayonetta 2 developed by a different developer and with a different subname. But, the version developed by Platinum belongs to Nintendo, and cant be ripped off directly even if only partialy. That list of code belongs to Nintendo. Not even SEGA can use it without their consent, as they dont own the code.



Around the Network
NYANKS on 12 December 2013

They should have expected this, the people that played the first one don't necessarily have a Wii U.



BMaker11 on 12 December 2013
STRYKIE said:
generic-user-1 said:
STRYKIE said:
z101 said:


People who still begging for a port are truly not very clever (dumb as bread).

Anyway a niche game like Bayoentta 2 fits better to the Wii U audience than to the blockbuster CoD-Audience.


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.

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...

So what you're saying is, the Nintendo contingent are only interested in playing games that just so happen to be exclusive to one platform? That's quite an unhealthy endeavor...

 

Besides, niche core platforms =/= better exposure, look at Okami.

I saw your comment about Bayonetta being "niche" and it struck a chord. How is it niche? Bayonetta is made in the same style as Devil May Cry, which I'm sure you know Kamiya also created. And DMC popularized the entire hack and slash genre on consoles. There's be no God of War, Dynasty Warriors, Ninja Gaiden (as we know it now), Onimusha, Darksiders, etc. without DMC. These are all hugely popular games, and Bayonetta is made in the same style by the originator.

Explain to me how that is niche?



BMaker11 on 12 December 2013
Nem said:
BMaker11 said:

Nem said:


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 with 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.

 And yet the game Metal Gear Solid 1, as we recognize it, is on more than one platform. Nintendo may own "The Twin Snakes" but then I just go back to my point about a possible Bayonetta 2: Complete Edition, if that were to ever happen. Konami may not be able to re-release Twin Snakes without Ninty's permission, but they can still re-release Metal Gear Solid (and they have, multiple times). Recognition that Twin Snakes is remake of MGS is a key factor here. Let's say Ninty owns Bayonetta 2. They don't own a possible "Complete Edition" remake, which Sega could release.


Yes, you could have a re-imagining of Bayonetta 2 developed by a different developer and with a different subname. But, the version developed by Platinum belongs to Nintendo, and cant be ripped off directly even if only partialy. That list of code belongs to Nintendo. Not even SEGA can use it without their consent, as they dont own the code.

Yes, I agree with this. This is roughly what I've been saying (other than Nintendo straight up owning Bayonetta 2 in its entirety). Because Sega owns the IP, they could very well make a "Complete Edition" or "The Definitive Version" of Bayonetta 2. Updated graphics, more missions, extra characters, etc. Bayonetta 2 as it stands won't appear on other consoles because Ninty is publishing. I thought I was clear about that. But since Sega owns the IP, they can do something with Bayonetta 2 and put it on other consoles if they so choose.

And honestly, that's all I was trying to say in my original post. Some people just tried to grill me saying that for saying that Sega could bring Bayonetta 2 to other consoles in some form or another



dahuman on 12 December 2013
BMaker11 said:
MikeRox said:
BMaker11 said:

Goldeneye 64 (Goldeneye 007) was remade for the Wii and was published by Activision. They gave up the publishing rights to "Goldeneye 007". Then, that game was ported to PS3 and 360 and called Goldeneye 007: Reloaded. Do you think it's just that impossible for the same to happen with B2? That a remade Bayonetta 2: "Complete Edition" isn't possible?

And don't have me pegged for a "port begger". I don't expect this game to come to PS3/4 or X1/360. Like I said in my original post, it will take a bunch of jumping through hoops to get this game there (either by PG getting bought out or signing on with another publisher), but also, like I said in my original post, a port is possible.

Actually, Goldeneye on Wii and PS3/360 has no relation to the N64 version. It's a completely different game built from scratch using the Call of Duty engine with completely different levels and content. The only thing that remains the same is the license, which Activision now own meaning they were able to create very similar scenarios.

The reason they called it Goldeneye really was to cash in on popularity that the completely different N64 game still holds with gamers now.

Platinum could very easily make another Bayonetta style game for PS3/4 and 360/ONE. But it wouldn't be Bayonetta 2.

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

Do you seriously think that Bayo2 will be such a classic that they will completely remake the game on a different engine with a different name 13 years after it's released? Let's be real here.



dahuman on 12 December 2013
BMaker11 said:
Nem said:
BMaker11 said:

 And yet the game Metal Gear Solid 1, as we recognize it, is on more than one platform. Nintendo may own "The Twin Snakes" but then I just go back to my point about a possible Bayonetta 2: Complete Edition, if that were to ever happen. Konami may not be able to re-release Twin Snakes without Ninty's permission, but they can still re-release Metal Gear Solid (and they have, multiple times). Recognition that Twin Snakes is remake of MGS is a key factor here. Let's say Ninty owns Bayonetta 2. They don't own a possible "Complete Edition" remake, which Sega could release.


Yes, you could have a re-imagining of Bayonetta 2 developed by a different developer and with a different subname. But, the version developed by Platinum belongs to Nintendo, and cant be ripped off directly even if only partialy. That list of code belongs to Nintendo. Not even SEGA can use it without their consent, as they dont own the code.

Yes, I agree with this. This is roughly what I've been saying (other than Nintendo straight up owning Bayonetta 2 in its entirety). Because Sega owns the IP, they could very well make a "Complete Edition" or "The Definitive Version" of Bayonetta 2. Updated graphics, more missions, extra characters, etc. Bayonetta 2 as it stands won't appear on other consoles because Ninty is publishing. I thought I was clear about that. But since Sega owns the IP, they can do something with Bayonetta 2 and put it on other consoles if they so choose.

And honestly, that's all I was trying to say in my original post. Some people just tried to grill me saying that for saying that Sega could bring Bayonetta 2 to other consoles in some form or another

No because it won't generate enough cash returns for another investor should they throw more cash into it, remember that the 2nd game was canceled to start with, not to mention it then wouldn't be called a port, it'd be a complete remake.