Since this post got lost on the last page.

One thing I'll never understand whenever Bayonetta or similar cases are being discussed is how it's the equivalent to giving the fans of that game/franchise the middle finger. Surely being able to enjoy another entry in that series is better than seeing that series die? And if the platform change is that big of a gripe to certain fans (I can accept situations where money is the problem) then perhaps they weren't particularly big fans to begin with.

Also amany people who complain never had the intention of buying the game even if it was on PS4 but like to whine because it's cool to shit on Nintendo.

That's your own issue, not mine.

There is also a huge difference between third party asking and first party. 

I see we've gone to warping a brand into something it's not. 

I don't think I'll waste any more time with talking to you about what is third party owned and what is first party, because I know how you like to warp and prolong a discussion, until said person lashes out at you and either both or one person getting banned.I know how you operate Rol. 

Seeing some of these replies, I don't blame Kamiya for acting like an asshole.

Yakuza is actually fairly popular in Japan and seems to be having a renaissance in the West. Valkyria Chronicles did okay after the price cut on PS3 after its release, though it wasn't profitable for Sega at the time, and then the Steam port apparently did well enough for them to give the series a second look.

Bayonetta, much as I like the series, has never done well on any platform. It's basically a prestige project for Nintendo. My hope is that with the Switch being a far more successful platform than the Wii U, that Nintendo will promote Bayo 3 and it will actually become profitable for once. And I guess it's possible: Xenoblade Chronicles 2 made it past 1 million units, which is a first for the series.

That said, I agree. Bayo 3 is a Switch game, deal with it. It was either the Switch or nothing. I applaud Kamiya for putting up this explanation, though I can fully understand his frustration at dealing with port-begging Twitter twits.

In the context of this conversation and how copyright works, it’s effectively a 1st party title, as Nintendo and Sega apparently share the copyright. Don’t let the conversation get bogged down by semantics, based on the information we have currently, Rol is correct.

If you’re interested in discussing the brand itself in context of future games, that’s another story, but the ownership of Bayonetta 2 and 3 should be clear at this point. We don’t need the same topic argued ad hominem, so next time you have this argument with someone, please provide counter-evidence to end the argument early, or just step away from it to begin with.

Here's another explanation:

Nintendo funded Bayo 2 and 3. Therefore, any assets and code created through investment from Nintendo are legally the property of Nintendo unless Nintendo voluntarily signs the rights over to Sega. Thus, Sega cannot port Bayo 2 or 3 over to other platforms without Nintendo's consent to use Nintendo-owned assets. If they did so without Nintendo's consent, they would be sued, and Nintendo would crush them in court, and probably financially as well. As Nintendo owns the code in Bayo 2 and 3, they effectively have total control over where those games go. Nintendo is a much bigger company than Sega, and Sega has a good working relationship with Nintendo that they wouldn't want to damage through defying the terms of their agreement with Nintendo, especially since they are making money off of the Bayonetta deal. And Nintendo is never going to agree to allow assets they paid for to fund games on their competitors' platforms.

Nintendo itself has this issue with an IP it owns: Donkey Kong. Do you know the reason why the arcade versions of DK and DK Junior have never been released on Wii, Wii U, or (so far) Switch? It's because the arcade games were coded by Ikegami Tsushinki, and that company owns the code to them. They actually took Nintendo to court when Nintendo used Ikegami assets to develop DK Junior without Ikegami's consent. Nintendo lost that lawsuit. Even though Nintendo owns the Donkey Kong character, they can't port any Donkey Kong games coded by Ikegami unless they get consent from Ikegami. The same situation exists with the Donkey Kong games made by Rare, which is now part of Microsoft. Those games can only be ported by making deals with Microsoft even though Nintendo owns the IP. Microsoft can't port them to its platforms without Nintendo's permission, and Nintendo can't port them without Microsoft's permission, because of the parts of those games that the two companies legally own. So it is with Sega. Nintendo owns enough of Bayonetta 2 and 3 to block Sega from porting those games to other platforms. So they are as likely to show up on PlayStation or Xbox as Mario or Zelda are.

Why are people still port begging? If Nintendo is bankrolling it, then naturally they want to keep it closer to their chest. I was shocked to see Lego City go multi, but instances like that are going to be rare, especially now that they have a hit system again.