Should Nintendo and Sony loan they IP's and dormant IP's to other dev's

[Flame]

So have been thinking about creating this thread for a while but with the newly announcement of Cadence of Hyrule i decide to create it now.

So i was thinking im sure other developers would bite Nintendo hands to do a F-Zero or Earthbound game. even other ones like Advance wars. just look at Metroid prime 4 if nintendo thinks the game is not to standard they could put a clause that the game doesn't get released so the devs would need to would they time and effort to make a good game.

in Sony's case they have alot of dormant stuff but they just dont care about them. If Sony is to release another handheld they should do this among other things of cause which lacked on the vita case (microSD and marketing). Syphon Filter and Socom are just some example.

even loaning they main stuff like Nintendo did with Mario and rabbids game.



So what do you guys think?

 

[Ryccardo]

Should, as in would likely benefit the consumer? Hell yes

Would they?

 

[FAST6191]

There are two main approaches for IP

1) Guard it like it is precious, assume people will remember all the bad and it will depress future sales.

2) Free for all with lawyers.

You can make it a spectrum of sorts, and weight it accordingly. Warhammer/Games Workshop being a great case study for it -- give small aspects to devs you don't expect much from. If they do well then fantastic, if they do badly then nobody really knows anyway. Give the bigger stuff with more name recognition to those you reckon will do well (previous games, them porting things for you, them sorting multiplayer or something for an existing game, them being the game dev equivalent of film/tv's second unit...). You can also do things like micromanage and assign a continuity officer.
Extra credits did an overview of the Warhammer thing



"they could put a clause that the game doesn't get released"
They could but they would have to give a big cut to the would be dev, fund a lot of it, write an iron clad checklist or something similar to offset the potential amount of money (easy company killing) that would be lost if it is kicked in the head at the last moment.

 

[IncredulousP]

So have been thinking about creating this thread for a while but with the newly announcement of Cadence of Hyrule i decide to create it now.

So i was thinking im sure other developers would bite Nintendo hands to do a F-Zero or Earthbound game. even other ones like Advance wars. just look at Metroid prime 4 if nintendo thinks the game is not to standard they could put a clause that the game doesn't get released so the devs would need to would they time and effort to make a good game.

in Sony's case they have alot of dormant stuff but they just dont care about them. If Sony is to release another handheld they should do this among other things of cause which lacked on the vita case (microSD and marketing). Syphon Filter and Socom are just some example.

even loaning they main stuff like Nintendo did with Mario and rabbids game.



So what do you guys think?

My boy, this peace is what all true warriors strive for.

 

[Stwert]

Nintendo aren't as tightly controlling of their IP as is often believed, they are controlling, make no mistake about that. They always keep an eye on developers and get involved when they feel they need to, like it or not, when companies are working with their IP. However, they do, and have for years now, regularly let other developers to use their IP's, so long as it's a Nintendo exclusive game, obviously.

• F-Zero GX was developed by Sega's Amusement Division.
• Capcom developed Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages, Minish Cap and Four Swords.
• Namco co-developed Mario Kart 8, ARMS, Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, Wii U and Switch and developed Pokken Tournament DX (not to mention the Mario Kart arcade games).
• Ubisoft of course developed Mario & Rabbids.
• HAL Laboratory, well, there's basically every Kirby game ever, the original Super Smash Bros., Mother 3 and some Pokemon games.
• Blue Planet (who used to be Bullet Proof) did Yoshi's Cookie.
• Paon developed DK: King of Swing, DK Jungle Climber and Donkey Kong Barrel Blast.
• Paradigm were responsible for Pilotwings 64.
• Pax Softnica developed Mother for the N.E.S, Earthbound for the S.N.E.S and Wave Race for the Game Boy (the first game in the series, contrary to what some people think).
• Camelot, who are actually a subsidiary of Sega, are of course very well known for the Mario Golf and Mario Tennis games.
• Platinum Games developed Star Fox Zero and Star Fox Guard.
• Square, famously of course developed Super Mario RPG and Mario Hoops 3 on 3.

That's about all I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure I've made some glaring omissions. I'm not counting games like Eternal darkness, developed by Silicon Knights. Which although owned by Nintendo, was a one-off, the concept was created by Silicone Knights and despite being an awesome game, isn't one of their better known games.

Nor am I counting one of the most famous franchises, Metroid Prime, as although when development started out on the first in the series Retro Studios was an independent company, they are now a subsidiary of Nintendo. The same can be said of Rare, who were independent when starting out on the development of Donkey Kong Country, but became a subsidiary along the way to its release.

 

[MarieDiaz]

I think both companies are loved by their customers.

 

[Glyptofane]

Sega has been allowing this for Shenmue 3, Alex Kidd, and now The House of the Dead. I have thought before about how it would be nice for anything to be done by anyone with some of the dormant Capcom and Konami IPs, but had never considered it for Nintendo.

 

[Deleted member 42501]

If I built something from the ground up its up to me what I do with it. No need to appease any of your fanboy fantasies, desires or wishes because its my intellectual property and my work made it what it is.

You want an F Zero? Why can't someone else make a game thats a patch on it? Same with Earthbound, Advance Wars and anything else you can name. Go ahead, run free devs, lets see what you can do....


*crickets*


That alone tells you all you need to know because if the IPs were played free and easy then the quality the marque is associated with would plummet and no one would care beyond starry eyed true believers (see Sonic Cycle).


This is a for profit business model, not some kind of communistic creativity sharing pool. Which wouldn't even work anyway due to reasons outlined. No wonder you people are obese social rejects who sit on the net all day then game their pointless lives away without a clue of how the world really works....

 

[Veho]

Nintendo loans their characters to other dev teams but tightly control their output.
They gave free rein and complete creative control over their IPs once upon a time... it did not go well

 

[PacBunnyXV07]

The better question is should SEGA loan their ips COUGH Sonic COUGH COUGH to other devs?

 

[Kwyjor]

F-Zero GX was developed by Sega's Amusement Division.

And there's the F-Zero GP Legend games, developed by ... Suzak? Who also did Wario: Master of Disguise, apparently?

I've heard some people suggest that the whole GP Legend anime was a big experiment in letting other companies have free reign with Nintendo IP, and that it went badly enough to make them reluctant to try again.

 

[Dr_Faustus]

The better question is should SEGA loan their ips COUGH Sonic COUGH COUGH to other devs?

They already did that before a few times, the results have been mixed to say the least. Even Mania while being a shining example of something great was not what Sega was hoping for when it under performed in sales compared to their expectations.