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

fatslob-:O on 14 December 2013
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger said:
fatslob-:O said:
Dr.EisDrachenJaeger said:
People^

People have to be payed by Nintendo.

He was using it to describe the scale and scope of the game( which is more than bayo)

Which meant the game had costed MORE THAN BAYONETTA. Again instead of sidestepping what the tweet had meant when you get more people to the job you know that it costs more than bayonetta. It's obvious the game was 50% more expensive to make compared to bayonetta 1. 

Money required for development doesnt scale in that manner

The money required for develo

*Faceplam*

There's two types of resources, physical (tools, developers, etc.) and then you have economical resources. How do you infer that he meant people only and even then it obviously costs more money to higher more programmers at the same time. 

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=614076

He specifically states that the game wasn't CHEAP to begin with. Which is fair to say that it costed more to make than bayonetta.



Around the Network
oniyide on 14 December 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
Conduit profitted? source? cause i doubt it. ALl i heard is HVS made money on it. Which would make sense since Sega paid them to make the games in the first place. Now Sega probably saw no money, wish i kept the GI where they said they made no money on it.

http://segabits.com/blog/2011/02/07/high-voltage-conduit-made-profit-dont-need-to-sell-a-million/


that doesnt say SEGA profitted though and by this article we can officially say the sequel was a flop as it didnt come close to the sales of the original



curl-6 on 14 December 2013
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
Conduit profitted? source? cause i doubt it. ALl i heard is HVS made money on it. Which would make sense since Sega paid them to make the games in the first place. Now Sega probably saw no money, wish i kept the GI where they said they made no money on it.

http://segabits.com/blog/2011/02/07/high-voltage-conduit-made-profit-dont-need-to-sell-a-million/


that doesnt say SEGA profitted though and by this article we can officially say the sequel was a flop as it didnt come close to the sales of the original

But the first game did not flop. And since a lot of the engine development and game were complete before Sega stepped in to publish, and since Sega agreed to publish the sequel, I doubt Sega lost money.



curl-6 on 14 December 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Zombie U's sequel was pulled because it did not even sell close to profitability. 600k used to be profitable......at the leginning of last gen. Those who profitted off of the Wii were smart. They invested cheaply and came out winners in the end. 

If it's true that ZombiU didn't profit, that speaks to gross mismanagement at Ubisoft, as nothing about the game is expensive.


As a Nintendo fan you should understand Ubisofts frustrations. They had faith in Nintendo when most third parties did not.

On the one hand I understand therir frustrations, but on the other they have to an extent brought it on themselves with bad ports, delays, etc.



oniyide on 14 December 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
oniyide said:
Conduit profitted? source? cause i doubt it. ALl i heard is HVS made money on it. Which would make sense since Sega paid them to make the games in the first place. Now Sega probably saw no money, wish i kept the GI where they said they made no money on it.


Doesn't take much to profit off of games for the Wii. It was old tech so devs took advantage of the old and cheap tech. Nintendo isnt a tech leader (LOL). They always guess wrong when they launch first. The Conduit had to have profitted though for Sega to feel good enough to publish Conduit 2 for the Wii U. Think about it.

I have thought about it and by the way they treated Conduit2, stealth release, no advertisment whatsover; im inclined to believe that Conduit didnt do as good as they wanted, so they figured why even put effort in with the sequel? If it was so profitable why treat the sequel to your profitable game like some pariah?



Around the Network
oniyide on 14 December 2013
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
curl-6 said:
oniyide said:
Conduit profitted? source? cause i doubt it. ALl i heard is HVS made money on it. Which would make sense since Sega paid them to make the games in the first place. Now Sega probably saw no money, wish i kept the GI where they said they made no money on it.

http://segabits.com/blog/2011/02/07/high-voltage-conduit-made-profit-dont-need-to-sell-a-million/


that doesnt say SEGA profitted though and by this article we can officially say the sequel was a flop as it didnt come close to the sales of the original

But the first game did not flop. And since a lot of the engine development and game were complete before Sega stepped in to publish, and since Sega agreed to publish the sequel, I doubt Sega lost money.


oh im pretty sure they did, especially on the sequel. Honest this is coming from the dev that said they made an engine on Wii that would make their game look as good as a PS360 one. With a blatant lie like that im not inclined to believe anything they say, plus Sega said in an GI article that the game didnt do as well as they wanted.



Soundwave on 14 December 2013

Nintendo should just buy the IP entirely to piss people off, lol.

And announce a Bayonetta 3 fully toon shaded using the Wind Waker engine and a complete parody of dudebros gamers.

The end of the game should have Iwata with a hardcore version of Bayonetta 2 for other platforms which he then wipes his rear end with and flushes down the toliet. 

 



fatslob-:O on 14 December 2013
Soundwave said:
Nintendo should just buy the IP entirely to piss people off, lol.

And make a Bayonetta 3 fully cell shaded and a complete parody of dudebros gamers.

Eh, at this point no one could give a damn about the franchise. The people that do have a damn with it will just move on like nothing happened so they should probably just let nintendo have another irrelevant franchise. 



S.T.A.G.E. on 14 December 2013
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
curl-6 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:


Zombie U's sequel was pulled because it did not even sell close to profitability. 600k used to be profitable......at the leginning of last gen. Those who profitted off of the Wii were smart. They invested cheaply and came out winners in the end. 

If it's true that ZombiU didn't profit, that speaks to gross mismanagement at Ubisoft, as nothing about the game is expensive.


As a Nintendo fan you should understand Ubisofts frustrations. They had faith in Nintendo when most third parties did not.

On the one hand I understand therir frustrations, but on the other they have to an extent brought it on themselves with bad ports, delays, etc.

I am talking about one game, not many. ZombiU.



Soundwave on 14 December 2013
fatslob-:O said:
Soundwave said:
Nintendo should just buy the IP entirely to piss people off, lol.

And make a Bayonetta 3 fully cell shaded and a complete parody of dudebros gamers.

Eh, at this point no one could give a damn about the franchise. The people that do have a damn with it will just move on like nothing happened so they should probably just let nintendo have another irrelevant franchise. 


Apparently some people still have a issue if they have a stick up their rear end about this like over a year after it was announced for Wii U. 

I find it funny.