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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - New Nintendo IPs in Switch-gen

Tagged games:

JWeinCom said:
curl-6 said:

To be honest, I completely forgot about Astral Chain.

Isn't that a co-owned IP like Fatal Frame or Wonderful 101 though?

According to Platinum "“In the case of Astral Chain, it’s an IP that’s owned half by Platinum and half by Nintendo. ...Ultimately it’s Nintendo’s call (if the game hits other platforms), not ours. They own the publishing rights to Astral Chain so really we have no say in that matter. "

So yeah, a co-owned IP like Fatal Frame and Wonderful 101.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
curl-6 said:
JWeinCom said:

According to Platinum "“In the case of Astral Chain, it’s an IP that’s owned half by Platinum and half by Nintendo. ...Ultimately it’s Nintendo’s call (if the game hits other platforms), not ours. They own the publishing rights to Astral Chain so really we have no say in that matter. "

So yeah, a co-owned IP like Fatal Frame and Wonderful 101.

More or less.  Just giving the exact quote.



curl-6 said:
RolStoppable said:

You caught on quickly.

As a sidenote, curl endorses Bayonetta, but dismisses Astral Chain. You'd think that noteworthy similarities welcome similar judgment, but it's pushing subjectivity to a whole new level.

To be honest, I completely forgot about Astral Chain.

Isn't that a co-owned IP like Fatal Frame or Wonderful 101 though?

This confuses me a little honestly. If your argument was that you want new Nintendo IPs that are developed in-house, I could understand. I think there's a little bit of a difference in saying "I want Nintendo to fund third parties creating new IPs" and "I want the Mario team to make a new IP", for example. But not including an IP because of the difference between co-owned and fully owned? That seems extremely silly. It's considered first party by Nintendo, I really don't understand splitting hairs about IP that Nintendo basically own. Or do we think Platinum is going to buy out Nintendo's ownership and go PS4 exclusive? Nintendo made major design decisions with the title, led the team in a certain direction, they even let the team go on hiatus for two years straight to make NieR Automata and didn't break up plans for the game because of it, which is a kind of strange loyalty and freedom you don't see often.

It's Nintendo's baby, just like it's Platinums. The same could be said of Fire Emblem, Pokemon, etc. 



Sushi Striker is a port of a 3DS game. I also wouldnt really consider FE Warriors a new IP



KLXVER said:
JWeinCom said:

Splatoon and ARMS are great and unique games that really didn't fit with any of Nintendo's current IP.  So why not make them?

If there's an idea that's better than the older ones, then use those ones.  I mean, I love Punch Out! to death, but there's not a ton to do with that franchise, whereas Arms presented something fresh, so let's go with that.

Although Im not a big fan, Ill give you Splatoon. Its a creative and well made franchise. 

But if Arms is the best they got this gen, then yeah, give me a new iteration of an older franchise instead.

Im not opposed to a new big IP of course, but I just don't trust Nintendo to give it what it needs. Rather them just pay third parties to do it for them. Astral Chain was great. More of that please.

Your personal dislike for ARMS (which is awesome) isn't really relevant.  It was a new idea that they wanted to try, and it didn't make sense to try it with an older franchise.

And, if they had given you an iteration of an older franchise instead, there's no guarantee that will be great either.  See Star Fox Zero.