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

Rockstar better release a *REAL* sequel to Manhunt. and unabandon that series.

/end thread



Around the Network
soulfly666 said:

Rockstar better release a *REAL* sequel to Manhunt. and unabandon that series.

/end thread

Heh, this just popped up on Dualshockers:



mornelithe said:
soulfly666 said:

Rockstar better release a *REAL* sequel to Manhunt. and unabandon that series.

/end thread

Heh, this just popped up on Dualshockers:


SWEET!!!



Please make a better OP next time, Your OP is incomprehensible.

On topic:
That is why Sony now requires completely ownership of all Intellectual properties developed by second party publishers, where Sony money is.

But there is the downside of making companies that want to own their own IP disgruntled, like insomniac, that doesn't own any of the Sony published IP (rachet and clank, resistence etc) and now went to microsoft as to make a self owned IP with Sunset Overdrive.



enditall727 said:

This is a topic about things that have mainly happened in the past. I'm also mainly focusing on Nintendo and Sony's b**ch ass's! I was thinking about it and it made me mad.

 

I want you all to put your selves in Sony and Nintendo's shoes as if you were the head of each company respectively.

 

How THE F**K could Sony sit here and let Crash Bandicoot and Spyro The Dragon go like that? How!? These franchises were popular and you just made the decision to just abandon them?

Take this "L(loss)"!

 

And how THE F**K could Nintendo let Rare and all its franchises go like that? How!? This is worse than Sony's situation. Like really, Nintendo? You just ABANDON them that easily? How fu***ng dare you let rare go like that after all you've been through!

 

Take this "L(loss)"!

 

If you look at Microsoft with the Gears Of War situation, you can clearly see that they wern't with any of that " oooh-look-at-me-we're-Sony-and-Nintendo-and-we-abandon-beloved-franchises" shit!

 

Can anybody explain the logic behind why these companies ABANDONED these VERY POPULAR franchises like this?

 

If you were Sony, would you have did the same by letting Crash Bandicoot and Spyro The Dragon go? If so, why?

 

And if you were the head of Nintendo, would you have did the same by letting Rare and all their franchises go? If so, why?

 

I know these things happened a good while ago but I just cannot understand how they made the decision to let these franchises go the way that they did. Let's get to the bottom of this now

Correct me if I'm wrong but, doesn't Activision own Spyro now?



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Around the Network
solidpumar said:

Please make a better OP next time, Your OP is incomprehensible.

On topic:
That is why Sony now requires completely ownership of all Intellectual properties developed by second party publishers, where Sony money is.

But there is the downside of making companies that want to own their own IP disgruntled, like insomniac, that doesn't own any of the Sony published IP (rachet and clank, resistence etc) and now went to microsoft as to make a self owned IP with Sunset Overdrive.

Well to be fair, they tried going multi-plat first, and that bombed.  So, they figured they needed a partner.



The real reason franchises got dropped over the years is that each generation has made developing a game a longer and more expensive process. Back in gen 5 Squaresoft flung out FF V, VII, and VIII within a year and a half of each other while juggling other projects like Parasite Eve and Xenogears. These days the much larger Square Enix struggles to make anything other than Final Fantasy and the occasional Dragon Quest; most of their other titles get farmed out to a subsidiary.

Granted S-E is an extreme example--that's why I picked it--but most developers show similar trends. I conservatively guestimate game development takes five times more man hours than it did fifteen years ago. Developers pick their most profitable projects and go from there.

This is one of the major reasons I think the AAA game market is in the process of imploding.



amak11 said:
Things cost $$$, you can't bring things back based on love.

In the case of Crash, Sony never owned them. Naughty Dog sold it and something else to Activision to escape bankruptcy. Sierra was bought out from Activision.... Thus, Spyro.

Nothing Rare worked on in it's own time was owned by Nintendo... hell Nintendo didnt even have a controlling stake, they did have a large stake in Rare. Microsoft bought out 100% of the company

Naughty dog never sold Crash , they  happened to rent space on Universal's lot , at the same time Universal created Universal interactive to enter the video game market with Mark Cerny at it's head .

Mark had  a large sum of money to get started but no games  so he approached his neighbour ND with the offer to finance a game but in return Universal would own the Ip , ND agreed and the game eventualy became Crash , Cerny did the same deal with Insomniac and Spyro who like ND where housed on the same lot.

It should be remembered that when Mark Cerny made the offer neither he or Naughty Dog had a concrete game idea in mind , he was just paying for product or in Universal Interactives case as a new entrant in the Video game field  a portfolio of IP's .

So the reality is Universal owned both Ip's before they where even made , Sony entered the picture a good while later when they saw the game at a trade show and came on board as publisher . later on they bought out ND the studio but Crash wasn't owned by Nd and Sony was faced with owning a studio who had in their own words done alll they could or wanted to with crash and a owner who didn't want to part with what at the time was it 's biggest seller.

 

 



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot

Sony replace them anyway, we lost Crash but gain Jak which then left for Drake and then we got The Last of Us. But you do have a point is just that the market chaged quite a bit since late 90s-early 2000s



Ka-pi96 said:
Blob said:
Sony never owned crash or spyro, just moneyhatted them.

And Nintendo never owned rare, then microsoft became majority share owner. Nintendo basically had to sell their shares at that point.

This was back when PlayStation was dominating and Nintendo were saying to 3rd parties 'do what we say or fuck off'.... no moneyhat was needed...


Haha yeah thats probably true, I have no proof that sony ever payed any money.

Dominating might be a tad strong a word fo back when the first spyro/crash came out .To me it's just very strange that pretty much every other platformer made it's way over to N64/game boy except Crash and Spyro. Im sure sony would have had to have done something to keep them considering how big the mascot platformer market was on Nintendo systems. Note that im not saying theres anything wrong with paying for exclusives or necessarily that it 100% happened, just wouldn't shock me if it did.