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

Forums - Gaming - Can somebody explain how a company can just abandon their franchises like this?

 

Why do companies let their beloved franchises go?

1.) Because they're b**ch-made. 28 65.12%
 
2.) Because they're b**ch-made. 15 34.88%
 
Total:43
*Sound Of Rain on 16 October 2014

If I was the head of Sony I would've tried to buy the Crash IP. I would've let Spyro go. This is both for business purposes & because I personally don't like Spyro much.

If I were Nintendo, I would've sold Rare but tried to keep the Banjo IP. Banjo-Kazooie had potential as a character moreso than a series.

I can understand their decisions though



Around the Network
Lafiel on 16 October 2014

at the time Universal had the rights to both Crash and Spyro, Sony acted as a publisher for those titles, but didn't gain the rights to the franchises



fleischr on 16 October 2014

I think Sega, Capcom, and Konami should be more the object of our wrath when it comes to abandoning franchises.



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

Intrinsic on 16 October 2014

Thing is... sony never owned any of those IPs you mentioned.



kekrot on 16 October 2014
Ka-pi96 said:
*Sound Of Rain said:
If I was the head of Sony I would've tried to buy the Crash IP. I would've let Spyro go. This is both for business purposes & because I personally don't like Spyro much.

If I were Nintendo, I would've sold Rare but tried to keep the Banjo IP. Banjo-Kazooie had potential as a character moreso than a series.

I can understand their decisions though

Only problem with that is they didn't own Rare in the first place... you can't sell something that isn't yours...

I'll add for those uninformed who might read the topic, that Nintendo owned 49%, and the Stamper brothers owned 51%. The Stamper bros. wanted to sell to MS, and I don't think Nintendo would want to keep a 49% share in a company while MS has 51%.



Yep.

Around the Network
Aj_habfan on 16 October 2014
mornelithe said:

Activision owns Crash Bandicoot, and Sierra owns Spyro. It's not up to Sony, it's up to those two companies.  Insomniac orig created the Spyro series, but never had ownership of the IP, it's false to assume that Sony owned it, at any time (or Insomniac for that matter).  Crash Bandicoot, was originally done by ND, and quite frankly, I'm more satisfied with what ND's done since then.  Uncharted + TLOU vs Crash?  Yeah, I'll take the former.

Nail on head.



AZWification on 16 October 2014
Wright said:

What if those franchises just...aren't profitable anymore?

 

There's no point in using nostalgia if people won't purchase your game.

How can we know for sure if a franchise isn't profitable anymore? It's not franchises like Crash are constantly getting games or something.



                
       ---Member of the official Squeezol Fanclub---

Wright on 16 October 2014
AZWification said:

How can we know for sure if a franchise isn't profitable anymore? It's not franchises like Crash are constantly getting games or something.


Market analysts would be my guess. Not that they have to be right, but just influence enough so that people move by what they say.



WhiteEaglePL on 16 October 2014

If I would be the head of Nintendo.....I would rule the gaming world.



WagnerPaiva on 16 October 2014

The simple answer in most cases is: they probably think it would not sell that well.

Funny animals from N64 era are probably not the saffest bet these days. Look at Ratchet and Clanck or even Jak and Dexter.
The devs must think people do not care about antropomorphic animals as they used to anymore.
Are they right?
I really don´t know.

In Gears case, they are developing a new game, or multiple ones, they will come out as megaton exclusives for some convention or event.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.