Anyone have insider access that can tell us what the lowdown is on Rare?
Anyone have insider access that can tell us what the lowdown is on Rare?
I was just going to make a thread asking the same thing.
I could probably help you out there, but when I tried to look all I got was some kind of error. I'll check again and get back to you guys on that...
Boys and girls, here ya go, the edited story on Rare:
IGN claims that MS has purchased a 100% interest in Rare.
The announcement hasn't been made yet because Nintendo and Rare are still negotiating the ownership of key franchises like Perfect Dark.
I like, I like. Now to see how this pans out...Quote:
The company's de-emphasized focus on a second-party model and its new partnerships with Namco, Sega, Capcom and others exemplifies its change in development philosophy, and leaves no room for an expensive investment in Rare.
I can't see Nintendo ever letting Rare make Perfect Dark games on another console, and please Nintendo hold on to Blast Corps too! Blast Corps 2 on Cube would roxor my soxors
To the best of my knowledge, Rare published Perfect Dark and owns all the rights to it. If you go to the official site you can see that the name is copyrighted Rare. So... I would expect a new PD on Xbox.Quote:
Originally posted by SpoDaddy
I can't see Nintendo ever letting Rare make Perfect Dark games on another console, and please Nintendo hold on to Blast Corps too! Blast Corps 2 on Cube would roxor my soxors
There's a story on PlanetGameCube which also says all this nonsense.
This could be good for Rare. Focus on new themes and new characters and I think they can come up with some good stuff on Xbox.
nor i
i dont see Nintendo Letting Rare have any of the characters like Conker, Banjo, or Perfect Dark or the tons of other ones
i think maybe i could see them letting go of Conker but i dont know Nintendo is like a greedy old man that holds tight to his money (characters for nintendo) till the day he dies
as far as their games go on the box it says Nintendo and Rare own the rights to PD though it could be just rare now
but most the other ones are Nintendo owned
i think PD may be the only one Rare owns its selfs
I'm under the impression that Rare and Nintendo jointly own characters and franchises that Rare developed and Nintendo published. Including the extended Kong family. And that means that each company could block the other's use - which would be a total waste. One will buy the other out.
Burgundy is right, except in the case of the Donkey Kong franchise, which Nintendo always kept exclusive rights to. The only Donkey Kong related things Rare owns are the code they wrote for the games, not the license. And to my knowledge PD is still co-owned by both, so no PD for xbox unless Nintendo ok's it
not my work.
These are interesting times indeed. A second party is no small thing. Consider for a moment what makes you buy a console. In the case of the GameCube, was it the promise of a cute little purple box to match your makeup kit? No. At least, I hope that wasn't the draw. You probably, like most other gamers, anticipated Perfect Dark 0, Banjo-Threeie, Kameo, Conker, and various other titles that have been hinted at practically since the GameCube was named as Project Dolphin. Get the 'good' ending of Donkey Kong 64, in fact, and there's a picture of a dolphin, suggesting Rare will bring that series to the next level.
Apparently, it won't.
The news that Microsoft bought Rare is especially shocking. Why would Nintendo part with the company and allow its (current) bitterest opponent to take the reigns? The answer most suggest--and the one I accept--is that Nintendo no longer feels they need Rare.
Note I didn't say I necessarily agree with the truth as Nintendo sees it. According to reports, around 3% of Nintendo's revenue this last year came from Rare. The year before that, it was 10%. Well, 3% might not sound like much. And it's not. But honestly, what all did Rare bring out last year? Not a lot. And the year they did a good job, they produced 10%. Nintendo could have easily expected a next year where Rare brought them as much as 15 or even 20 percent of profits. Not to mention how many people who are considering a GameCube might not buy one after this announcement.
What the heck is Nintendo thinking?
The answer is one we can only guess at. If Nintendo is selling off dead second parties, where will they place the funds they receive? Smart money is on either more development from the parties they have, or on a new second party or two. Either one could be a good deal for Nintendo.
Let's consider first what might happen if they give more funding to their current second parties. The two that come most readily to mind are Retro and Silicon Knights. Both of those developers have proven (or in the case of Retro, are about to prove) that they know how to produce the mature titles Nintendo is said to need. Does the idea of Nintendo spending money to make sure we see more games from the developer of Metroid Prime worry you? I find it rather exciting. And what about Silicon Knights? If Nintendo supports them, we could be seeing some cool output.
There's another issue, and it's more or less related. It's possible that Nintendo still owns the Perfect Dark license. If they do, will they let it slip into Rare's control? I'm guessing...no. Even if Rare doesn't develop, I can see Nintendo handing it off to Retro. And that, friends, might not be a bad thing. Remember, Retro is made up of some of the pioneers in the FPS genre. Things could work out well.
But suppose for a minute Nintendo decides not to put their money into the current parties, but rather to buy a new one. This is a longshot, but what if they use the money to make the GameCube much, much, much more tempting to Sega? What if they use it to buy Sega as a second party?
Like I said, it's a longshot. But consider some very important things.
1) Microsoft is distracted with this whole Rare acquisition.
2) Sega has been having huge success with the GameCube, more than it has with the XBox or the PS2.
3) Nintendo is a company similar to Sega. They both have similar ideals.
Take those three things and suddenly, the idea doesn't seem so far-fetched, does it? Reportedly, Microsoft has looked into buying Sega before, but didn't do so. And now why should they? Sega's games are selling like crap on the system. So Sega isn't as huge a draw to the XBox as Microsoft expected. That may cause them to lose interest. Rare offers more appeal.
From the perspective of Nintendo and Sega, things might look different. Sega went platform-agnostic to make more money. But they haven't really been doing so, not to the extent they might like. Sales on the XBox have been disappointing. Sales on the PS2, while not bad, haven't been particularly good, either. Yet Sega, who has been handing what some might call second-rate titles to Nintendo, has been seeing the greatest success with the purple box. And Nintendo can't help but see its fans are thirsty for more.
So, it all comes down to a little math. If Nintendo makes 3 or 4 hundred million selling Rare and Left Field stocks, why shouldn't they pour that money into Sega and have themselves the most tasty of all second parties? What second party could possibly beat Sega? None. And you can almost see it working.
As a second party, Sega wouldn't release any sports titles on other systems. But Nintendo is ready for that. Sega Sports can replace the sports powerhouse that was Left Field. Then there are the platformer/odd titles Sega is known for. No problem. Nintendo likes those, too. And since Rare was mostly providing that, an acquisition of Sega would help Nintendo recoup its losses in one fell swoop. It might even come out on top!
Is it starting to make sense? It makes sense to me. And I'm thinking it could easily make sense to Sega. If Nintendo takes their money from selling Rare and Left Field stocks, adds in some money from Yamauchi...this could be Nintendo's future unfolding right in front of us. And with the Triforce development already happening in Japan, suddenly everything fits into place.
In conclusion, I'd like to remind you that this editorial contains as much speculation as it does fact. More, perhaps. Yet at the same time, I like to think I've made sense. What we're seeing right now is either a big blow to Nintendo, or it's the start of the company's rapid move forward. It's one or the other. I'm hoping it's the latter. Aren't you?
Written by Jason Venter.
that makes as much sense as the whole "the background textures in SMS are just place holders and it looks like that because it is using revolutionary 3D something or other".
If sega is for sale, even for more cash, ms would do wise to get them. Rare produces so little, and so little of worth these days, it's sad.
How long does it take rare to make a game for a console they are familiar with? 2-3 years? Wait until they start mucking around with XB and take 2 years to get familiar with that.
I can see it now, perfect dark x, running on xb, whoops...that console is old, let's port it and enhance for xb2 and just release it in 2006.
Uh-huh...
My thoughts:
A) Rare = *yaaaaaawn* .. I could totally care less...
B) I'd be happy if Sega went Nintendo exclusive.... but mainly because I am a big Sega fan and I'd like to see their games on one console, and I love Gamecube as a console, even if Nintendo's current software lineup bored me to tears....
That is all. :)
Nintendo can have Sega, as long as Smilebit goes to MS. :)
Hitmaker can also go to MS if they agree to a console port of VO:Force.
Sony can have Sonic Team for all I care. :p
Rare leaving Nintendo is no big deal to me. They havn't put out anything I really enjoyed since Goldeneye and Conker. Banjo can go to hell and take his scavenger hunts with him.
I kind of doubt that if Nintendo gets Sega, all of their development teams will break off like Smilebit and Hitmaker.
If sega does go exclusive to the big N, I just hope they keep putting out the quality content like VF4 and JSRF for the cube and not poor DC ports (sonic adventure 2).
Ummm, I hope nobody is copying and pasting from an insider site. I'll go ahead and assume thats not the case so everybody can soak up the news, but if you ARE posting insider content, can you please remove it when you get a chance? Cool.
In either case, please don't solicit or provide insider information. Not at all kosher.
I'd rather see Sega remain an independent 3rd party and see Nintendo invest the money they made in new talent in the industry. Buying out Sega would only have one positive effect IMO, and that's to keep Sega out of Microsoft's hands. Rather, I'd like to see Nintendo grow by cultivating smaller development teams both in the US and Japan, ensuring a steady stream of games and more refreshing ideas...
Well, we can share and discuss the facts, but not exchange the article.Quote:
Originally posted by Mode7
In either case, please don't solicit or provide insider information. Not at all kosher.
I'm assuming that italicized article above isn't Insider, because if it was, I'd have to delete it.
The article seems very pro-Nintendo, like something that came out from Planet Gamecube.
No the italicized article isn't insider... at least as far as I've seen. Spo's post on the other hand, is a copy and paste. :(Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Well, we can share and discuss the facts, but not exchange the article.
I'm assuming that italicized article above isn't Insider, because if it was, I'd have to delete it.
For those how haven't already read what's posted at CubeIGN:
http://cube.ign.com/articles/370/370713p1.html
and as Mode, Burg and others have conveyed - copy/paste of any "Insider", "GS Complete" material in whole is not permitted. :)
I see plenty of people taking news out of print mags and posting it here and in other places. There's nothing wrong with posting news from IGN Insider.Quote:
Originally posted by Mode7
In either case, please don't solicit or provide insider information. Not at all kosher.
When it's out of context...sure, but posting the entire article in whole is not allowed. we've already had a number of issues with this before, and it would create A LOT of problems for TNL if the content was allowed to remain on the boards. Unless you're looking to make problems for the entire community, this is why we ask that you refrain from this...
Burgundy, and other legal officials will be happy to add some clarity on this matter...
Bare facts and information isn't protected by copyright. Works of authorship are, and this includes articles - whether in print or online. Technically, *any* republication of an article is an infringement, but we don't think free sites mind if we circulate their articles - but they'd certainly be entitled to ask us to stop. When sites ask for money for access, however, we have to assume that they don't like free access.
Think of it this way. If the U.S. bombs Iraq tomorrow, and the Times runs a story about you, you don't have the right to copy the whole newspaper and sell it yourself. You do, however, have the right to talk or even write about the news you've read, even to people who haven't bought a Times.
Here's an artist's interpretation of what the article was about for those without insider:
http://liquid2k.com/grusl/dkbill.jpg
I appologize if I violated any of the posting rules, I found the article on a message board and wanted to share information with the TNL community about a question we've all been pondering for months. I know not to post things like insider reviews, previews, media captures, ect. but I had no clue about news stories. I don't recall there's ever even been an insider only news story before now.
Ain't no thing, Spo. I edited your post to amend the situation, not to admonish you. In the future, just sum up the news instead of copying verbatim. IGN has a right to their stories, but not to the underlying news.
It would be weird to see Conker on a non-Nintendo system. He was in DK Racing for the cry'n-out-loud.
I really don't think Nintendo's going to let Rare have those franchises SMBchick, they've probably been haggling so long because Nintendo won't give anything in a compromise. Nintendo's far too proud to let franchises it helped develop start appearing exclusively on another system.
Not false, but fallacious. If this was about "pride," Nintendo would not have sold out at all. This isn't the Yamauchi era anymore.Quote:
Originally posted by SpoDaddy
I really don't think Nintendo's going to let Rare have those franchises SMBchick, they've probably been haggling so long because Nintendo won't give anything in a compromise. Nintendo's far too proud to let franchises it helped develop start appearing exclusively on another system.
And personally, I'm going to be really pissed if I can't play Conker on Xbox because Nintendo is hard-headed.
SMB: You have a point, but it was a lot weirder to see cutesy Conker from DKR get drunk and piss all over fire demons.
It's not like there's anything particularly special about Conker itself, though, is there? No real history built up around the character (and it's not like the name itself will sell games, considering how poorly the first game sold). Some scouser chipmunk (or whatever) would do the business equally well.
The same thing goes for Perfect Dark - yeah, PD sold very well (compared to Conker), but, is anyone really going to miss the character herself?
Video game character properties are only really worth something if people have built up an emotional attatchment to the character, and I don't think much franchise value develops until a sequel happens. Banjo-Kazooie is the only real franchise Rare has, it looks like.
what about battletoads? still waiting for a new one.. :sneak:Quote:
Originally posted by Stone
Banjo-Kazooie is the only real franchise Rare has, it looks like.
The problem with Nintendo letting these franchise characters go, no matter how many games they starred in or how popular they are, is that Average Joe Schmoe will see Rare's games on the Xbox with such and such character who appeared on an N64 and think "Nintendo games are on the Xbox now!" when that is hardly not true. Companies like Nintendo have to keep their properties and identy together as a whole, otherwise, confusion among customers will equal a loss of sales or even anger towards Nintendo if Joe Schmoe finds out that Mario games are on the GC and Conker is on the Xbox.
That's a very good point, but doesn't that happen when third parties jump consoles? I don't think the average gamer has any concept of who develops what. Did most people see Final Fantasy as anything but a Nintendo game before Square jumped? Do most people see FF as anything but a Sony game now?
Even on the GameFAQs boards, where you would expect to find gamers more knowledgeable than average casual gamers (pause for fits of laughter), I read someone whining that Contra and Castlevania aren't in Animal Crossing.
Have you been toking on the crack pipe again? ;)Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Even on the GameFAQs boards, where you would expect to find gamers more knowledgeable than average casual gamers
LOL, yeah, you'll always get those types who really have no clue what's going on. And that very well happens when third parties jump, which is something that I believe that 1st parties don't like at all. I wonder if Sony had apprehensions when Crash Bandicoot became 3rd party. And I think it depends on the type of game too. Square gamers are more hardcore than the average Joe Schmoe who buys Goldeneye.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
That's a very good point, but doesn't that happen when third parties jump consoles? I don't think the average gamer has any concept of who develops what. Did most people see Final Fantasy as anything but a Nintendo game before Square jumped? Do most people see FF as anything but a Sony game now?
Even on the GameFAQs boards, where you would expect to find gamers more knowledgeable than average casual gamers (pause for fits of laughter), I read someone whining that Contra and Castlevania aren't in Animal Crossing.
I'm pissed Mega Man isn't in Animal Crossing. ;)
I know it's funny. But wouldn't you expect that someone who goes out of his way to find a game site and sign up for a message board would be more likely to know that Konami makes Contra than your average gamer who buys a PS2 to play Madden and THPS and that's it?
Everybody and their mothers knows about GameFAQs, so I doubt that's true 80% of the time. The problem is that when you dilute people who knows about games with a large population of people who think they know about games, you get funny posts like what you mentioned...Quote:
Even on the GameFAQs boards, where you would expect to find gamers more knowledgeable than average casual gamers
Perhaps. But that doesn't change my main point, which is that most people don't know who develops what, so I don't think Banjo-Whatever on the Box would cause any more of a stir than any third-party but previously Nintendo-exclusive franchise.
I don't think we'll see another Banjo game on the Box, because it doesn't seem that the Box's target market would accept it. But I'd bet on PD and Conker.
That's true, but Nintendo is a big exception because the majority of people who played B-K or Rare's other games were very young (10-15 range) and they are less likely to know what system to get. Coupled with the fact that their parents have no idea what console to get for the kids and how they think Mario is on every console, you can probably understand that Nintendo is keeping in mind their largest user base, which consists of younger kids with parents who buy any system that has the same games that little Billy's N64 had.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
Perhaps. But that doesn't change my main point, which is that most people don't know who develops what, so I don't think Banjo-Whatever on the Box would cause any more of a stir than any third-party but previously Nintendo-exclusive franchise.
If Nintendo cared all that much, they wouldn't be selling Rare. That market is going to buy the Nintendo console, regardless of what Banjo game comes out for the Box.Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
That's true, but Nintendo is a big exception because the majority of people who played B-K or Rare's other games were very young (10-15 range) and they are less likely to know what system to get. Coupled with the fact that their parents have no idea what console to get for the kids and how they think Mario is on every console, you can probably understand that Nintendo is keeping in mind their largest user base, which consists of younger kids with parents who buy any system that has the same games that little Billy's N64 had.
And I have no sympathy for people who can't read the console name on the DVD case.
And I also have to disagree with you on the age grouping. B-K was the only Rare game truly suitable for a younger gamer. DK was just too big, B-T and JFG too hard, and I don\'t even think you\'d argue CFBD, 007 or PD.
Well, DKR and Mickey Mouse Speedway are \"kiddie,\" but Rare isn\'t taking either of those anywhere.
Nintendo is letting Rare as a developer go, not necessarily their licenses. They were probably disappointed in Rare's development turnaround time, and figured that it can be better developed in the hands of another team. This probably isn't too much of a stretch considering Metroid Prime is being developed by Retro instead of within EAD.Quote:
Originally posted by burgundy
If Nintendo cared all that much, they wouldn't be selling Rare. That market is going to buy the Nintendo console, regardless of what Banjo game comes out for the Box.
Which again, is why Nintendo should fight tooth and nail for the franchise characters they can get.
You may not, but Nintendo probably does. These are the people who spend money, whether they are idiots or not, money talks.Quote:
And I have no sympathy for people who can't read the console name on the DVD case.
Why would EAD develop Metroid Prime? They didn't develop any other Metroid game.
Otherwise, I guess you have a point. Although I don't know if Nintendo would farm out Rare franchises that have already been established in 3D on the 64 as opposed to a 3D Metroid which is virgin ground. Rare games are distinctive, love 'em or hate 'em. But I guess most consumers wouldn't notice the nuances, so it's a small point.