I know, that's why it seems like it would be a bad investment to sink a lot of money into a game where you did not own the IP.  It would be more than a bit atypical.  Look at how Sony will fund a game proposal from a small developer but they always ask for the IP in return.  Otherwise, there are a lot of murky areas, legally speaking.

It makes me think of the WWE's recent practice of forcing performers to change their names when they're signed, with the WWE owning the new brand.  There have been so many back-and-forth law suits with regards to who has the rights to what that it seems like it will never end, with CM Punk and the Honky Tonk Man joining the parade.

it's worthless! Those guys aren't going to listen to you sadly.. :/

Platinum has made it very clear that Nintendo is in control of what happens with Bayonetta 2. Just accept it and move on.

Perhaps Nintendo have bought it, but never bother to announce and make it clear, and that detail is hidden somewhere that no one's bothered to look. There's also the possibility that SEGA wanted to hold onto the IP for dear life (for whatever stupid reason, even thought they obviously buried it), and they may have kept it at a steap discount to Nintendo on getting total-rights over the game. If there was some pre-developed game, for example, and Nintendo stepped in and said:

"We will fund this but it will be exclusive. Period."

And SEGA said:

"Okay, but we get to keep the IP but you don't have to pay for whats already built but you have ownership over it."

Then both companies could walk away decently happy, Nintendo pays less (potentially a lot less, depending on how far along the game was before SGEA pulled the plug), SEGA keeps their IP... for whatever reason.

I don't really see a reason for SEGA to keep this IP, when they're obviously just itterating and burying new IPs until they find some sort of "big" hit, while recycling Sonic and Aliens. It'd be interesting to see if Nintendo may not have ended up shelling out much less than expected on the title while also securing exclusivity over it entirely just because SEGA wanted to keep the IP. It really doesn't make much sense, otherwise, why Nintendo would just take the whole thing in its entirety if they also went through the bother of porting up Bayo1 and getting rights to it too. (We at least know from Kamiya that Nintendo has full control and rights over Bayo2, so that's not even a gray area, they are the sole owners of the title and gamecode.)

So either they do own the IP, now, or they got a deal from SEGA over not buying everything outright and cutting out SEGA entirely.

I doubt its gonna be multi-platform cause just by the history of the wiiU/Nintendo, no Nintendo funded games went multi-platform ever, as I recall

So sorry guys, if you really want to play this game, get a wiiU or else quit nagging about it

The only games that were actively funded by Nintendo that ended up playable elsewhere were Perfect Dark, Banjo-Kazooie/Tooie (remade for XBLA) and that was part of the deal for Rareware, that Rare would retain control over game code for non-Nintendo IP (Donkey/Diddy Kong) based games.

It's also why GoldenEye 007 (the N64 game) could not be brought to Virtual Console/XBLA ... Nintendo and Rare share the rights to the game code (as neither one obviously owns the Bond character), so Microsoft would have to get Nintendo to agree to re-release the game. Nintendo refused, so MS had to kill the idea. 

This translation is not accurate. 

When Sega said (according to Kamiya) "やっぱりこの計画は無しに", that's a pretty clear and definitive statement that the project was to be brought to a permanent end. There is no mention of "temporarily" here by Sega.

Later when Kamiya says "temporarily" (一時）, I think he is merely stating this within the context that the project was later picked up by Nintendo; in effect his work on the project was halted only temporarily, but due to Nintendo's initiative, not Sega.

This!

Why are people still complaining about it. If you want to play it, buy a Wii U. It isn't coming out on other platforms.

Tales of Symphonia is an interesting case. Nintendo published it in the US, and the later PS2 version never released in any Nintendo published areas. Unclear if it was Namco's choice or contract clause.

However, while the enhanced PS2 version never released in the West. the HD collection did. Same question to wonder if it was just Namco's decision making or if because it was a "remake/remaster" they got around the existing contract.

I must admit you're right. Might have read too fast here