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

Forums - Gaming - Twitter user: "No Bayonetta on PS4?" Hideki Kamiya: "Ask Ninty, also ask for Mario and Zelda on PS4"

spemanig said:
kazuyamishima said:
with a bunch of games coming to PS4, I couldn't care less about this game/saga. Played the first one and never again touch it.

I mean, this is why it's exclusive.

Pretty much; if PS3/360 owners had actually bought the original, Sega wouldn't have abandoned it and Nintendo would've had to step in and save it.



Around the Network
Nautilus said:

Its a different kind of deal.When you try to fund your game through crowdfunding sites like Fig orKickstarter, you are asking for money to make the game, and in return the person who funded the game gets a copy or a toy or something of the sorts in return.Its not like one single person is funding the game entirely.

As for when a company funds a game thast couldnt be done otherwise, it is not doing it out of its kindness.It wants something back.A company wants to make money after all.We all forget every now and then that videogames are a business and in the end, the industry is more concerned with making money than having an artistic pride or keeping the gamer happy.

And Bayonetta 2 wouldnt happen without Nintendo help.At that point, Platinum needed more money than the 2 or 3 millions it could get through kickstarter.It needed the game to be fully funded.How can we complain about companies stepping in in cases like that?The perfect scenario would be for all games to be multiplats, but betwenn having no game and having it exclusive, I would choose the latter.

These types of situations are not black and white.

Yeah, but that's the thing, the two have one major thing in common, or two should I say:

1) Money, every project needs funding one way or another, that's just how they work.

2) If no one crowdfunds the project, it doesn't happen, just like if no one funds an IP that was left to rot in the back yard. No one pays, it doesn't happen, again that's just how it is.

The differences are that people are funding the devs directly with their money, becoming a collective that hands a large sum of money over time, while a company hands theirs over in one large sum on a given date. Their currency is the same and their goals of getting the game made are the same. The only differences are that it's a company's bank account handing money over to a dev, and the company wanting to profit off of the game. Even then that's 2 for 2, not 5-1 in terms of differences when you look at the central core of funding a game.

 

If I had the choice, I'd choose multiplat, so long as the PC version isn't borked in any way.



Mankind, in its arrogance and self-delusion, must believe they are the mirrors to God in both their image and their power. If something shatters that mirror, then it must be totally destroyed.

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:
Like if anyone is really missing Bayoneta on PS4.

Apparently somebody is.  They directly asked about it.

AlfredoTurkey said:

Imagine how we all felt when we found out that Gamecube was going to be exclusively getting Resident Evil. Now THAT, was a mind fuck.

Or Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest or Street Fighter or Chrono Trigger or......

There is some people that ask only to get his abrasive answer. But sure there may be some 100k people wanting it on PS4/X1, but that is far from being even relevant or making the IP profitable on those systems.

Also the Bayo1 was very boring.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Chazore said:
Nautilus said:

Its a different kind of deal.When you try to fund your game through crowdfunding sites like Fig orKickstarter, you are asking for money to make the game, and in return the person who funded the game gets a copy or a toy or something of the sorts in return.Its not like one single person is funding the game entirely.

As for when a company funds a game thast couldnt be done otherwise, it is not doing it out of its kindness.It wants something back.A company wants to make money after all.We all forget every now and then that videogames are a business and in the end, the industry is more concerned with making money than having an artistic pride or keeping the gamer happy.

And Bayonetta 2 wouldnt happen without Nintendo help.At that point, Platinum needed more money than the 2 or 3 millions it could get through kickstarter.It needed the game to be fully funded.How can we complain about companies stepping in in cases like that?The perfect scenario would be for all games to be multiplats, but betwenn having no game and having it exclusive, I would choose the latter.

These types of situations are not black and white.

Yeah, but that's the thing, the two have one major thing in common, or two should I say:

1) Money, every project needs funding one way or another, that's just how they work.

2) If no one crowdfunds the project, it doesn't happen, just like if no one funds an IP that was left to rot in the back yard. No one pays, it doesn't happen, again that's just how it is.

The differences are that people are funding the devs directly with their money, becoming a collective that hands a large sum of money over time, while a company hands theirs over in one large sum on a given date. Their currency is the same and their goals of getting the game made are the same. The only differences are that it's a company's bank account handing money over to a dev, and the company wanting to profit off of the game. Even then that's 2 for 2, not 5-1 in terms of differences when you look at the central core of funding a game.

 

If I had the choice, I'd choose multiplat, so long as the PC version isn't borked in any way.

But Bayonetta situation is different.Most crowdfunded games are small games, games that can be developed with the 500k, 1 million or even 2 millions they manage to get througfh these means.Or in other situations these crowdfunding sites are used to gauge interest in said game, and 90% of the budget is handled by the publisher/developer himself.

Bayonetta is a big title, one that would need(Im guessing here) 20 or 30 million dollars to develop, something that kickstarter wont be able to reach.And Platinum dont have much money, so they cant make a campaign just to see if there would be interest for such game, because the rest of the money to cover for all the expenses isnt simply there.Thus the need of a publisher, and thus the exclusivity.

If Bayo 3 manages to be really successful, like selling 2 millions or more, I can see Bayo 4 going multiplatform.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

There is some people that ask only to get his abrasive answer. But sure there may be some 100k people wanting it on PS4/X1, but that is far from being even relevant or making the IP profitable on those systems.

Also the Bayo1 was very boring.

I'm just saying you probably shouldn't say nobody wants it in a thread about somebody wanting it.

 

Is the demand enough to warrant a ROI even if Nintendo authorized it?  No clue. But some demand obviously exists or this thread would not.

Fair enough even though it should have been obvious I was being hyperbolic.

Nautilus said:
Chazore said:

Yeah, but that's the thing, the two have one major thing in common, or two should I say:

1) Money, every project needs funding one way or another, that's just how they work.

2) If no one crowdfunds the project, it doesn't happen, just like if no one funds an IP that was left to rot in the back yard. No one pays, it doesn't happen, again that's just how it is.

The differences are that people are funding the devs directly with their money, becoming a collective that hands a large sum of money over time, while a company hands theirs over in one large sum on a given date. Their currency is the same and their goals of getting the game made are the same. The only differences are that it's a company's bank account handing money over to a dev, and the company wanting to profit off of the game. Even then that's 2 for 2, not 5-1 in terms of differences when you look at the central core of funding a game.

 

If I had the choice, I'd choose multiplat, so long as the PC version isn't borked in any way.

But Bayonetta situation is different.Most crowdfunded games are small games, games that can be developed with the 500k, 1 million or even 2 millions they manage to get througfh these means.Or in other situations these crowdfunding sites are used to gauge interest in said game, and 90% of the budget is handled by the publisher/developer himself.

Bayonetta is a big title, one that would need(Im guessing here) 20 or 30 million dollars to develop, something that kickstarter wont be able to reach.And Platinum dont have much money, so they cant make a campaign just to see if there would be interest for such game, because the rest of the money to cover for all the expenses isnt simply there.Thus the need of a publisher, and thus the exclusivity.

If Bayo 3 manages to be really successful, like selling 2 millions or more, I can see Bayo 4 going multiplatform.

No way Bayo cost 30M to make, they would need 1M sells at full price only to break even, Nintendo wouldn't finance such crazyness... they don't put 30M in development even of Zelda or Mario... shouldn't expect even more than 10M, unless you have source for the costs it doesn't make sense.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm just saying you probably shouldn't say nobody wants it in a thread about somebody wanting it.

 

Is the demand enough to warrant a ROI even if Nintendo authorized it?  No clue. But some demand obviously exists or this thread would not.

Fair enough even though it should have been obvious I was being hyperbolic.

Nautilus said:

But Bayonetta situation is different.Most crowdfunded games are small games, games that can be developed with the 500k, 1 million or even 2 millions they manage to get througfh these means.Or in other situations these crowdfunding sites are used to gauge interest in said game, and 90% of the budget is handled by the publisher/developer himself.

Bayonetta is a big title, one that would need(Im guessing here) 20 or 30 million dollars to develop, something that kickstarter wont be able to reach.And Platinum dont have much money, so they cant make a campaign just to see if there would be interest for such game, because the rest of the money to cover for all the expenses isnt simply there.Thus the need of a publisher, and thus the exclusivity.

If Bayo 3 manages to be really successful, like selling 2 millions or more, I can see Bayo 4 going multiplatform.

No way Bayo cost 30M to make, they would need 1M sells at full price only to break even, Nintendo wouldn't finance such crazyness... they don't put 30M in development even of Zelda or Mario... shouldn't expect even more than 10M, unless you have source for the costs it doesn't make sense.

And 10 millions make sense?Whats your source for that?Do you think Sega would be that unwilling to fund Bayo 2 if the all the costs related to the game would only be 10 millions?Obviously not.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

mysteryman said:
I don’t know why people are complaining, he just made Bayonetta 2 multiplat.

Nice! :D



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Nautilus said:
DonFerrari said:

Fair enough even though it should have been obvious I was being hyperbolic.

No way Bayo cost 30M to make, they would need 1M sells at full price only to break even, Nintendo wouldn't finance such crazyness... they don't put 30M in development even of Zelda or Mario... shouldn't expect even more than 10M, unless you have source for the costs it doesn't make sense.

And 10 millions make sense?Whats your source for that?Do you think Sega would be that unwilling to fund Bayo 2 if the all the costs related to the game would only be 10 millions?Obviously not.

Because the original sales and cost of opportunity for its sales wouldn't justify the sequel being made by them paying it up. And claiming Nintendo would finance a game that would cost a lot more than their own games is quite strange if given without any source except "i guess so"



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
Nautilus said:

And 10 millions make sense?Whats your source for that?Do you think Sega would be that unwilling to fund Bayo 2 if the all the costs related to the game would only be 10 millions?Obviously not.

Because the original sales and cost of opportunity for its sales wouldn't justify the sequel being made by them paying it up. And claiming Nintendo would finance a game that would cost a lot more than their own games is quite strange if given without any source except "i guess so"

LOL

Im sorry, but this is just too funny.You say my reasons for thinking the costs are high is "I guess so", but then you go on to say that your reasons for being low is "I guess so" too.

Look, Sega is a company that wants money.If what you say its true and Bayonetta games usually costs around 10 millions, then why were they dissapointed with the first one?The first sold roughly 2 millions between 360 and PS3 and assuming that each game gave them 30 dollars in raw profit(given the discounts as the years passed by) the game would still have made 60 million dollars, 6 times more than the initial investement.Why wouldnt Sega be happy with it, at least not enough so that it wouldnt continue with the franchise?

So tell me, why do you think that Bayonetta 2 costs around 10 millions, instead of the 30 or so that usually AAA games costs?Oh, and give me actual facts or concrete data, because your childish excuse such as"Nintendo is so stupid, they dont like to spend money" dosent fly.

Edit:Oh, and Nintendo said that, for its bigger games, they usually need 2 million units sold to break even and have a small profit, so thats about 100 million dollars right there that are spent with their big first party games.Just so you know.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

spemanig said:
kazuyamishima said:
with a bunch of games coming to PS4, I couldn't care less about this game/saga. Played the first one and never again touch it.

I mean, this is why it's exclusive.

Your avatar pic kinda looks like Some Black Guy. 😸