Yea, owned by Tecmo, published by Microsoft. Just how Bayonetta 2 is owned by Sega, published by Nintendo. Hate to break it to you, but Nintendo doesn't own Bayonetta 2, they are just funding it at the moment. I guess that's the real point that you're missing.  Just like how Microsoft didn't own Ninja Gaiden 2, they just funded the development. The situation is EXACTLY the same. I don't know how you don't understand it. There are no "explicit details" needed. Only reason it's only on Nintendo is because Nintendo is publishing it. If Sega wanted to publish it, they could, and put it wherever they want. Nintendo can't tell Sega what to do with their game, if Sega, at some point, wants to get involved. To say that Sega owning Bayonetta has no impact is tantamount to me saying "you may own that shirt, but you can't wear it"

Does Microsoft own Mass Effect 1? BioWare owned the IP, but that had no impact, right? Doesn't matter if they sell the IP or whoever owns it (EA now). It will always belong to Microsoft and Microsoft alone, right? Microsoft didn't need to own the IP, just that one game, right?

If you can't see how that situation and the one with B2 aren't identical, then you are just blind. And it's derailing the thread too. All I said was that it's possible, through some changes behind the scenes, for this game to go multiplat, however, to do so requires a lot of work and going multi may not be justified. So get a WiiU if you want to play it.

The game was literally ripped from the hands of the consoles of where the true fans are. Wont sell on Nintendo, but for those who are true fans of Bayonetta they should pick it up and at least play it on a friends house. The Wii U wont bite. For those without Wii U, there are plenty of other third party games on the other consoles to really even care but really? Seriously. Aggrivating people over spilled milk is stupid. Theres nothing you can do about Nintendo publishing the game.

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

like FF? or sonic?  or shenmue?

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?

I'm gonna guess this was a misquotation because I said no such thing.