Forums - Gaming Discussion - A Full, Concise Explanation On Bayonetta's Publishing Rights And Long Development.

vivster said:
SegataSanshiro said:

Sony and MS didn't want to fund Bayo 2. Nintendo needed some 3rd party exclusives for Wii U, knowing it would not sell in the millions but hoping it would help rid of the Nintendo is just for casuals rep Wii built. (Also why they funded the failed Devil's Third and even published Ninja Gaiden III on Wii U) . Now that Bayonetta appeared in 4 games on Wii U, Bayo 1, Bayo 2, Wonderful 101 and Smash. This time Nintendo just wanted more Bayo. Someone at Nintendo likes the series and Platinum began making games on Nintendo systems with MadWorld, Infinite space (and Wonderful 101 and Scalebound began as Wii games) Platinum likes working with Nintendo and Nintendo likes working with them. Not a difficult concept to understand.

 

 

OTBWY said:

They wanted a big exclusive title for the WiiU. From a third party company. That's the only explanation.

I don't need an explanation why Nintendo wanted it, that's self apparent. The question is why Platinum needed it so badly that it couldn't have been done with any other publisher or at a later date. "They like Nintendo" doesn't seem to be a sufficient explanation since he just explained that they're basically willing to do business with anyone who has money.

It seems Nintendo was just a convenient way to get quick money and so they were fine with compromising on their vision and throwing their fanbase under the bus. I just want to hear that from his mouth. Making a game exclusive to a specific platform is never the best option for any game.

Very simple on Platinum's side.

- Free money to make game.
- Free money to make game for new Nintendo HD system.
- Free money to make game for new Nintendo HD system that looked exciting for them at the time.




Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
vivster said:

I'm still waiting if someone can provide a source of which publishers they exactly approached. I heard something of Sony and Microsoft but I don't know about other publishers. I will concede that point if someone finds a reliable source for that. If they really approached a number of other publishers before they saw themselves forced to go with Nintendo, that's fair game.

Though it does not really explain why it had to be done at that point and couldn't wait until they find a better offer. It's not like IPs suddenly evaporate if you don't make games for them in 3 years.

That's also where my comment about throwing their fans under the bus comes from. I believe the majority of fans would have been happy to wait for a sequel if that had meant being able to enjoy the game on more platforms than some very specific ones.

I don't buy this "Nintendo saved Bayonetta" crap as if the IP was at any point in danger of dying. It's a cult hit, you can pick that up whenever you like.

There's no precedence that I can think of right now where a development studio approached a different third party publisher from the one who owns the IP to successfully get a sequel funded. There's also no precedence of third party publishers teaming up to continue a failed IP of one of them. That's the kind of scenario where only console manufacturers are realistic options, because adding an exclusive game to their lineup makes sense in a business context, unlike in the two previously mentioned examples.

Why it had to be done is because there's no precedence of a single entry third party IP receiving a sequel way down the line, at least I can't think of any. Continually rising development costs make it all the more unlikely that a dormant IP that had only one game gets revived eventually.

It certainly is a curious case. One would think that SEGA had done a little bit more here.

I don't doubt that Platinum felt themselves to be in a hopeless position when it comes to the IP. You say that it's hard to pitch an old IP to anyone but console publishers, does that mean you think it's easier to pitch a new IP? Because that was also an option they could've taken. An option that I would've preferred greatly. I mean they did that with W101 and that's fine. But you have to understand that it's always a critical thing of moving an IP away from its fans as a way to "save" it. At that point you didn't really save the IP, but just your own game, disregarding the people who actually enjoyed it.

Kamiya probably had all of the good intentions (or not) but that doesn't cure the bad taste this decision left in most people's mouths.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SegataSanshiro said:

"Would Bayonetta 2 not exist without Nintendo? The answer is yes," says Atsushi Inaba, executive director at Platinum Games.

https://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/9/22/3371474/bayonetta-2-would-not-exist-without-nintendo-platinum-games-wii-u

 

“Without funding, we didn’t have the possibility to continue development, but we wanted to get this partially developed Bayonetta 2 available to the public one way or another. So we offered it to various publishers, but as it is a big title, we couldn’t find a partner company. Finally, Bayonetta 2 was about to get terminated completely, when…”

“Nintendo came in and lent a hand and we were able to restart the development we so desired. Finally, the game was released last week, so in five years, we were able to make Bayonetta 2 available to the public.”

“Knowing those circumstances, if someone is still angry for heading towards Nintendo, I wonder what’s the reason for that, wouldn’t you tell me in a way that is easy to understand?”

“As I have said earlier, if you want Bayonetta 2 on PS4 or Xbox One, how about trying to ask Nintendo… If Nintendo doesn’t say yes, it’s not going to happen… While you’re at it, try asking for Mario and Zelda too…”

https://mynintendonews.com/2014/10/01/kamiya-says-multiple-publishers-turned-down-bayonetta-2/

 

神谷英樹 Hideki Kamiya @PG_kamiya Ask Sega/Ninty. RT @lumpy_space16 Soo could you just remaster Bayonetta 1 for the xbox one and ps4, oh and btw, would a bayo 2 port still be

 

People can deny it all they want but Platinum literally says Nintendo saved Bayonetta. Also Did anyone really want MS to fund it? That worked out well for Scalebound.

 

If anyone wants the tweets missing in the OP they are here https://twitter.com/i/moments/963271450370236416

Since this post got lost on the last page.



vivster said:

It certainly is a curious case. One would think that SEGA had done a little bit more here.

I don't doubt that Platinum felt themselves to be in a hopeless position when it comes to the IP. You say that it's hard to pitch an old IP to anyone but console publishers, does that mean you think it's easier to pitch a new IP? Because that was also an option they could've taken. An option that I would've preferred greatly. I mean they did that with W101 and that's fine. But you have to understand that it's always a critical thing of moving an IP away from its fans as a way to "save" it. At that point you didn't really save the IP, but just your own game, disregarding the people who actually enjoyed it.

Kamiya probably had all of the good intentions (or not) but that doesn't cure the bad taste this decision left in most people's mouths.

The first Bayonetta was bordering on failure. It released with high expectations and had big initial shipments, that's why its sales are relatively high. The copies were already in the hands of retailers and selling them at dumping prices is financially preferable to not selling them at all. Most people aren't aware of these circumstances, so they look at sales numbers and think of Bayonetta as a moderate success. When a publisher isn't in great financial shape, cuts are being made and it affects the IPs where there is uncertainty that they can be profitable.

Pitching a new IP is much easier than getting green light for a sequel for a financially questionable IP, because the new IP doesn't have the stain of the already existing IP.

Your argument about disregarding people who enjoyed Bayonetta deliberately excludes people who consider games themselves more important than console manufacturers. In other words, you are arguing on behalf of fanboys who'd rather see the death of an IP than a sequel on another console manufacturer's platform.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

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.



Around the Network
forest-spirit said:
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.



RolStoppable said:

Yes, and that's the problem.

There's a reason why Kamiya suggests that people should ask Nintendo for Mario and Zelda on PS and Xbox. The copyrights of Bayonetta 2 and 3 effectively turn these games into Nintendo first party titles.

That's your own issue, not mine.

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



               

Chazore said:
RolStoppable said:

Yes, and that's the problem.

There's a reason why Kamiya suggests that people should ask Nintendo for Mario and Zelda on PS and Xbox. The copyrights of Bayonetta 2 and 3 effectively turn these games into Nintendo first party titles.

That's your own issue, not mine.

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

There is indeed a huge difference between first party and third party games. Asking for ports of the latter is realistic, but asking for first party games is nonsensical.

The problem is that you refuse to accept that Bayonetta 2 and 3 belong into the first party category.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:

There is indeed a huge difference between first party and third party games. Asking for ports of the latter is realistic, but asking for first party games is nonsensical.

The problem is that you refuse to accept that Bayonetta 2 and 3 belong into the first party category.

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.