-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
RUMOR: Nintendo has plans to revive a 'Dead and Buried' game (Update: Possibly Scalebound?)
- Thread starter iswasdoes
- Start date
- Status
They can use the Scalebound name without asking Microsoft to use it, since Microsoft abandoned the trademark.
This is the simplest possible point, why is that so hard for you to understand. Anyone can use the Scalebound name now. I could make a fart simulator named Scalebound and put it on the App Store, and Microsoft can't stop me.
At this point, it could mean that Platinum Games is working on Scalebound for the Nintendo Switch, but that it is their original vision for the game when they were making it for Wii. The characters, assets, setting, etc that have been shown on Xbox One still belong to Xbox One.
Of course, there could be some deal where Microsoft is allowing Nintendo to take over the IP, but I think my original scenario is more plausible.
They could petition to revive the trademark I think, but again this depends on a whole bunch of factors that I probably don't know the half of. It's not as simple as that.
But it does mean that they no longer have immediate protection for the name, yes. So they can't sue you right away.
There's really no evidence of that. It depends on details we don't have.
While MS doesn't own the trademark to SB they probably still own all the assets that were made. And if they have to start all over again what's the point in calling it SB. It's not like it's a beloved franchise with value. It was just an average looking game with dragons and a main character everyone hated the look of.
To revive the trademark, they would have to show an immediate (within an 18 month timeframe) intended commercial use case for the brand. So unless they have either revived Scalebound themselves or intend to, their petition for said revival would fail, particularly coming on the heels of an immediate abandonment.
That's why I presented it as a scenario and below stated that Microsoft could have sold them off. But I do agree and hope other people know that all we are doing is speculating about something that none of us know yet outside of Microsoft, Nintendo, and Platinum Games.
Right, probably true.
Either way, the point is if they want to dispute another party using the name (in court) they will be able to at least try.
The vastness of my joy will more than make up for it.
Mega Man Legends is way better than any game Kamiya has made.
My question would be, how expensive is it for Microsoft to retain the trademark for the name? Is it too expensive that they would much rather lose it than keep a name pretty well known within video game circles? Or do they feel like the name itself has been damaged to the point that it makes no sense keeping it?
Microsoft could also just never owned them. It wouldn't even be the first time they contract a company to make a game, cancel that game then the company is using the tech with another company to release a game.
But yeah, there's right now no way for any of us to know those details.
Scalebound looked so boring though. They'd have to really revamp the game.
Now this I can get behind. Reassemble the Treasure dev team! Go Go Trouble Makers! Shake Shake! HELP ME MARIIIIINAAAA!
Now this I can get behind. Reassemble the Treasure dev team! Go Go Trouble Makers! Shake Shake! HELP ME MARIIIIINAAAA!
Sure, I'm just saying that "Microsoft owns the trademark/Microsoft will need to sign off on it being used by another company" is an incorrect position.
Microsoft clearly feels that retaining the trademark was not worth the cost, which is why they abandoned it.
That's why i said they need to ask Microsoft first because it's totally not worth it to break the relationship for a cancelled game.
Reggie can walk to MS building and discuss with Phil now though since NoA and MS HQ just 100 meters away lol.
I don't think retaining the trademark would be terribly expensive (I think it's something like $300 every 10 years for the US at least) but fighting another party's use in court would probably be fairly expensive.
And what better way to show support for Kamiya than helping him realize his lifelong dream game? It would make for a great story, but not sure exactly this is what's happening behind the scenes.
I agree with you. But even if the assets etc belong to Microsoft. The simple solution is build from scratch using the Switch's hardware. I don't think MS could sue (if the case of asset ownership were true) if Scalebound Switch ended up having a completely different art style with assets designed around the Switch's hardware limitations (and thus differences in how characters looked) and if they altered some story elements here and there.
Again I agree we have no clue on the legal status of Scalebound between MS and PG. But there's plenty of ways around any situation if Scalebound is indeed now published by Nintendo.
Does that classify as buried? I remember the cancellation feeling rather shallow.
It was a bit sad that after Bayonetta 2, it seemed like Nintendo might not fund any more of their games.
I'm glad there's someone with power at Nintendo that's catering directly to me, lol.
Hardcore mech game, Bayonetta 3, and a brand new PG IP and the Switch isn't even two years old yet.
But again, they don't need to. They probably should, it would be the nice thing to do. But if MS no longer owns the Trademark and if Platinum has bought back the assets (this is completely unknown) then Nintendo really doesn't have much of a reason to ask MS before funding Platinum's game.
They might want to tell them "hey guys, just to let you know we're making Scalebound now, kthxbye" so that MS isn't caught off guard by the announcement but it's really unlikely MS would bother suing over this when they don't care enough about the IP to file a statement of use for the trademark.
They don't need to talk to Microsoft is the entire point. You think they should. They have no legal obligation to.
I think the trademark thing is a bit ridiculous to tread on.
On top of probably not being legal to try and reboot a game with a lapsed trade mark, screwing over MS would be in bad form for *both* PG and Nintendo.
PG would definitely ask permission first.
They could try and be sneaky, by asking MS to buy the assets/all the work done for a new project; MS presuming it will definitely be multiplatform/at least on Xbox.
That's probably the only way this could happen, but if this has leaked too early with deals still not completed, MS might try to retract it.
Kellams said on Twitter the other day that Microsoft owned the IP when Platinum was working on it.
Nintendo don't need to, but for Microsoft it's stupid they let it go and exclusive on Switch so easy.
Imagine how bad the PR will be, since hype of the game had been started after the cancellation announcement, and completely against current customers friendly statement.
Unless it's Switch+XB1 game, then they can fine with that.
Microsoft would absolutely need to sign off on any of the previous work being used. If they did not, a game named Scalebound would have to be completely built from scratch with all new assets and designs.
The cost of the trademark has absolutely nothing to do with Microsoft abandoning the trademark. You cannot retain a registered trademark that you are not using. They did not use it and could not provide evidence of it being used, so it was forfeit.
I honestly don't think it's worth getting all the assets off MS. If they're porting this (and we probably won't find out until 2020) then it's probably easier to build the entire game from scratch so not only does it eliminate the asset issue but it means that the game will work really well on the console, and it can have its own unique identity without the weight of the old build hanging over them.
But I'm sure Nintendo aren't stupid and whatever their options regarding development they'll do their best to maintain a positive relationship (and "friendly" business competition) with MS while allowing PG to maintain creative freedom. I mean they knew what they were getting into so whatever the situation I feel their lawyers would have researched any legal challenges and amicable ways of dealing with said challenges with MS. :)
In simple terms, they own the assets, since they funded development (unless the contract between Platinum and Microsoft had clauses that specifically stated otherwise, but we don't know anything about that, obviously). They do not own "Scalebound" the name. Hypothetically, Nintendo and Platinum can reboot development from scratch and make their own Scalebound.
It probably would be bad PR, but in the case that Platinum bought back the assets and Nintendo decided to fund the game what can they do? This is all predicated on MS selling the assets back to someone (Nintendo or Platinum), or the new game being completely rebooted without any of the original work done. In the former case MS made that bed when they sold it all back and in the latter case it'll only be Scalebound in name, and MS can tell its fans this.
Several other trusted insiders have said there was a rumor going around last year that Scalebound was being revived on Switch. They didn't say whether this rumor was trustworthy or not, just that it existed.
Would that be worth it? Why use the Scalebound name if its different in all but name.
Because the name has cache, and they like the concept it was originally built around. They can still build a game around that concept while starting development from scratch.
If this is true.
Ni-Oh was in development since 2004 technically. Sometimes a team gets really attached to a project even if its looks completely different from Point A to Point B. See also, Too Human.
Which doesn't contradict what I just said.
There's a lot more to "owning the IP" than what it first appears when reading the sentence.
Because MS has already provided a huge amount of PR for the title. A Scalebound announcement would absolutely rock the industry simply because of the history of the game
- Status