RUMOR: Massive Smash Ultimate leak is allegedly an emotional roller coaster [UPDATES IN OP]

Which team are you in, hooman? (NOTE: Vote-changing disabled!)


  • Total voters
    3,024
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 27, 2017
5,539
all factors considered it seems implausibly stupid and convenient, and the shot at Nintendo just makes it seem more intentional. But I guess OP can call me stupid and thats a-ok for some reason.
These are people that made a message that said fuck Nintendo and attempted to censor the name and did a poor job at it.

People are just that dumb. It’s either that or absurdly evil
 
Oct 25, 2017
770
I think Banjo pushes me to think this is fake. I just don’t see it happening. They wouldn’t do this unless Banjo had a game in the pipeline and I don’t think we will see a new game in the series any time soon.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,625
Also, Banjo and Conker were removed from that Diddy Kong Racing remake. Did Microsoft have their teams make that game though?

But there was that Banjo GBA game.

So no idea.
Diddy Kong Racing DS was Rare, yeah. I imagine that decision actually came from Nintendo - by that point the "Donkey Kong Universe" was pretty established, not to mention Conker had become a very, very different character post-DKR 64.

There was also a Viva Pinata game on DS, and this year's Microsoft E3 conference straight up had a Switch in it, thanks to Minecraft.

Honestly the barriers that were once up for Rare stuff on Nintendo were already pretty small (Goldeneye 64 was very almost ported to both Wii and 360 IIRC), I don't think they'd necessarily say no to Banjo in Smash these days. I'm half expecting his reveal to coincide with a Rare Replay port to Switch (minus everything for Xbox platforms).
 
OP
OP
ResetGreyWolf
Oct 27, 2017
4,150
In the initial ESRB leak before the 3DS version, the leaker posted images of every character in Smash history with either a check or an x to signify if they were in or not, plus the Smash 4 newcomers. Mewtwo was the only character with a question mark instead, so he was clearly under some sort of consideration at the time. And then he was publicly announced before the Smash Wii U launch. So yeah, even though they say they don't consider DLC until the game is out... they definitely do. It's PR talk to shield from potential criticisms of characters being cut solely so they can be added back in as DLC.
Hmmm that's a good point
 
all factors considered it seems implausibly stupid and convenient, and the shot at Nintendo just makes it seem more intentional. But I guess OP can call me stupid and thats a-ok for some reason.
???
there are lots of stupid people dude. it's much more likely the guy or his friend didn't really think things through than a guy intentionally destroyed his own life for internet fame.

It just feels like you want to argue without knowing what to say
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,539
I think Banjo pushes me to think this is fake. I just don’t see it happening. They wouldn’t do this unless Banjo had a game in the pipeline and I don’t think we will see a new game in the series any time soon.
It took 5 years since Mega Man’s Smash announcement for Capcom to put out a new game.

Even then around planning there was the Rare Replay
 
OP
OP
ResetGreyWolf
Oct 27, 2017
4,150
Diddy Kong Racing DS was Rare, yeah. I imagine that decision actually came from Nintendo - by that point the "Donkey Kong Universe" was pretty established, not to mention Conker had become a very, very different character post-DKR 64.

There was also a Viva Pinata game on DS, and this year's Microsoft E3 conference straight up had a Switch in it, thanks to Minecraft.

Honestly the barriers that were once up for Rare stuff on Nintendo were already pretty small (Goldeneye 64 was very almost ported to both Wii and 360 IIRC), I don't think they'd necessarily say no to Banjo in Smash these days
They were also working on Halo DS.

Microsoft didn't see the DS as a competing system at the time, which is why they allowed Rare to work on DS titles.
 
Oct 27, 2017
21,456
So is Sora considered a Square rep or a Disney rep by insiders?
All the fans I see all over the internet call Sora a Square rep. Idk if insiders think differently. We call him a Square rep because he was made by Square and his ties are always with Square.

Disney never seems to use him.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,473
So is Sora considered a Square rep or a Disney rep by insiders?
On contract, Disney. But they don't do anything with the series without Nomura's say so, to the point that it's basically Square's. It doesn't feel too dissimilar to how Spidey's movie license is still Sony's but we all know damn well Marvel is running.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,848
If “the roster was finalized in 2015” is the main/only reason for no Arms or XC2 reps, I have a hard time believing somebody from a completely unannounced game is in.

If I remember correctly, didn’t they announce Corrin as DLC when they announced Fates for 3DS? They’ll probably do that with the new FE character in the spring, along with Ribbon Girl/Spring Man, everyone’s weird XC2 rep, a Gen 7/Gen 8 Pokemon (if Incineroar actually isn’t in), a new game’s rep, and one more weird throwback.
Fire Emblem Fates was already out in JPN when they announced Corrin for Smash.
 
Oct 27, 2017
952
Banner characters in a November Direct and then the missing character revealed on December 6th at the Game Awards is my guess. Probably Dante or Sora.
This is a pretty solid theory imo. Then it also makes sense that all these insiders have heard, because they have contacts at the game awards.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,936
So is Sora considered a Square rep or a Disney rep by insiders?
The pedantic arse in me would say Disney, but it's not like they ever do anything with the character. Nominally it's the Mouse, but in practice I imagine the supervision about how Sora ought to be depicted would involve Square people.
 
Oct 25, 2017
613
???
there are lots of stupid people dude. it's much more likely the guy or his friend didn't really think things through than a guy intentionally destroyed his own life for internet fame.

It just feels like you want to argue without knowing what to say
Don't get me wrong, the background editing is the bigger reason I think its fake. The origin story of this whole thing just seemed really dubious and overlooked.
 
OP
OP
ResetGreyWolf
Oct 27, 2017
4,150
all factors considered it seems implausibly stupid and convenient, and the shot at Nintendo just makes it seem more intentional. But I guess OP can call me stupid and thats a-ok for some reason.
What the hell? You're losing an argument so you start smearing other people's names? Not once have I ever called you, or any other user, stupid. All I did was call out your nonsense arguments.

The way you're behaving is not cool. You've been relentlessly condescending, and now you're just being petty. Lying is a new low, even for you.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,625
Found the quote regarding Goldeneye being ported to Wii and 360:

In November 2006, Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime announced that Nintendo was exploring the possibility of adding the Nintendo 64 video game GoldenEye 007 to the Virtual Console, despite a complicated situation in which the game's developer Rare is owned by Microsoft (producers of the rival Xbox 360 console) and the video game rights to the James Bond franchise are held by Activision. He stated, "We would love to see it [on the Virtual Console], so we're exploring all the rights issues. On 7 January 2008, Xbox Evolved reported that an updated version of GoldenEye 007 would be released on Xbox Live Arcade. However on 11 January 2008, 1UP.com reported that a GoldenEye 007 port (as opposed to a remake) had been in development at Rare for several months, but stated that the title would not be released on the Xbox Live Arcade since "Microsoft and Nintendo couldn't agree on the financial side of things".
Eventually that semi-remake from Activision came out instead.

So yeah, Nintendo and Microsoft weren't exactly adverse to working together, and that was over a decade ago. Times have changed even more since then.
 
Oct 25, 2017
613
I've read this post four or five times and I'm still not quite sure what you are arguing lol.
Someone acting outrageously cocky about their leak only to have it backfire horribly is just too good to be true, almost like the equivalent of talking bad about someone and they're comically standing right behind them.
 
Dec 28, 2017
3,827
Found the quote regarding Goldeneye being ported to Wii and 360:



Eventually that semi-remake from Activision came out instead.

So yeah, Nintendo and Microsoft weren't exactly adverse to working together, and that was over a decade ago. Times have changed even more since then.
Those were separate projects. Goldeneye on Wii was supposed to be a Virtual Console/emulation
The game for 360 was a port. It was not meant to be emulated.
It wasn't just about Nintendo either, as they don't own that IP in any way
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,207
Germany
Diddy Kong Racing DS was Rare, yeah. I imagine that decision actually came from Nintendo - by that point the "Donkey Kong Universe" was pretty established, not to mention Conker had become a very, very different character post-DKR 64.

There was also a Viva Pinata game on DS, and this year's Microsoft E3 conference straight up had a Switch in it, thanks to Minecraft.

Honestly the barriers that were once up for Rare stuff on Nintendo were already pretty small (Goldeneye 64 was very almost ported to both Wii and 360 IIRC), I don't think they'd necessarily say no to Banjo in Smash these days. I'm half expecting his reveal to coincide with a Rare Replay port to Switch (minus everything for Xbox platforms).
There was Age of Empires ds too.

And if this has any meaning for future Banjo announcements, it'd be on the N64 classic mini.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,625
Eh guys...


Why did we never argue the Grinch picture
I actually linked that very poster in my original post

The difference is the dog is higher, and he's in front of the Grinch's back, of which there are no renders (that anyone has found). You can tell because the Grinch's face (which has green highlights) is on the opposite "side", with the dogs ears peeking out behind him.
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,682
It gets to a point in which a company realizes there's more money to be made by lending a certain property to someone else rather than keep it under wraps by themselves. It's the same reason why if Banjo Threeie was to be announced, I'd totally expect it to be released on Switch too. Microsoft has already proved they're willing to do this kind of thing if it guarantees more money with Minecraft.
 
Dec 20, 2017
382
I actually linked that very poster in my original post

The difference is the dog is higher, and he's in front of the Grinch's back, of which there are no renders (that anyone has found). You can tell because the Grinch's face (which has green highlights) is on the opposite "side", with the dogs ears peeking out behind him.
I just don’t see any back in that blurry piece... how do you guys see it so clearly? The color difference can be attributed to the low quality as well right?
That Or I may not understand your explanation
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,682
Honestly looking at it that Grinch picture does look the same, but I don't see how that changes anything. Why would the leaker have that marketing material on sight in the first place?
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,625
I just don’t see any back in that blurry piece... how do you guys see it so clearly? The color difference can be attributed to the low quality as well right?
That Or I may not understand your explanation


Side by side and mirrored, to give the full impression. You can see the lighter green face and his nose on the "bottom".

The ornament is meant to be folded over, so the Grinch's face is on one side, and the dog w/ back is on the other.
 
Dec 20, 2017
382
Honestly looking at it that Grinch picture does look the same, but I don't see how that changes anything. Why would the leaker have that marketing material on sight in the first place?
You could say to make it look more real, so it would have been intentional. Which may be the more out-there theory I know seeing as ut being real is more likely because of the giga effort there would have been made for this to be faked.

Team effort?
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,682
You could say to make it look more real, so it would have been intentional. Which may be the more out-there theory I know seeing as ut being real is more likely because of the giga effort there would have been made for this to be faked.

Team effort?
Still seems farfetched to me. As an evidence for it to be real it's pretty precise, I dunno.
 
Oct 28, 2017
56
I'm really interested in seeing the deal Microsoft made with Nintendo to get Banjo-Kazooie into Smash. I seriously doubt Microsoft did it without getting something in return. I could see a B-List Nintendo property appearing in a Microsoft product. My bet is F-Zero DLC for Forza Horizon 4
 
Nov 1, 2017
2,682
I'm really interested in seeing the deal Microsoft made with Nintendo to get Banjo-Kazooie into Smash. I seriously doubt Microsoft did it without getting something in return. I could see a B-List Nintendo property appearing in a Microsoft product. My bet is F-Zero DLC for Forza Horizon 4
LOL. No.
 
Nov 7, 2017
214
Why is that so hard to understand? How many times has a platform holder allowed their IP to appear in another platform holder's game on a competing machine? Zero?

I'm not saying this is impossible - I'm leaning on real here - and as others have pointed out, Phil Spencer has said he would allow it. But let's not pretend this isn't unprecedented.
Errr... Minecraft? Nintendo and MS even did a joint trailer with both of their logos.

Edit: sorry, I misread, that was not the point. But again, MS is not totally oposed to concede some of their IPs to another plaform holder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.